higher clocks vs more cores

[grkM3]

I think 22nm ivys are going to give there big brothers some serious comp once they hit the streets.I dont see why anyone would need more than 8 threads since there is almost nothing out there that would take advantage of them over bragging rights.

I can score over 10 pts on my 2600k in cinebench and thats only at 5.15 ghz and at 5.5 it gets over 11 pts

I would rather take higher clocks than more than 4 cores anyday and I think the 22nm are going to smoke the 6 core sandy Es once people clock them up.

a ivy at 6+ghz will beat out a sandy E at almost any bench just from the raw clock horse power we will get.

here is my 24/7 system running cinebench.Why would someone spend 1k on a sandy e when a 22nm ivy will do just as well once overclocked?

 

[dma0991]

Why would someone spend on a Ivy Bridge when a 22nm Ivy Bridge E will do much better once overclocked?

Fixed.

 

[grkM3]

Fixed.

we dont know how high they will clock yet tho lol

Ill grab one the day they hit the streets and try for 6+ghz and see :biggrin:

22nm ivy e is 1.5 years away and will cost over a grand and intel is adding more cores so they would clock as high as there 4 core versions

most of the people already have a 1155 setup and can just grab a 22nm chip and throw it in there system.spending 400 on a 2011 board and droping 1400 on a 8 core to get 2pts higher in cinebench is not worth the money at all.

 

[Denithor]

Apps that are effectively multithreaded and truly need serious horsepower will still favor a six or eight core CPU versus a highly overclocked four core (even with HT). Even if you can overclock to 5GHz+ you aren't going to overcome the 50-100% increased core count.

 

[tweakboy]

I will be the first to say MORE CORES !!! especially for my DAW alto my average project takes about 60 percent CPU usage... With more Cores like 8 ,, it would be 20 percent usage for example. A lot of leeway!!!, Also lots of RAM 32GB.

For my DAW usage more cores is better. But for Games, right now,, the faster the core the more important then if you have 4 core of 8 core,, it barely uses 2 cores BF3 uses 3 cores at most....

For Video Editing / Rendering , more cores the better once again....But as for games 4 cores is enough for a long time to come, suffice their fast enough.... Sandy is more then enough for any game, .... rest relys on the GPU..

 

[dguy6789]

Multitasking has always been the primary reason to have a multicore desktop or laptop computer to me, not the ability to run some niche program that by itself can use all of your cores. Today 6/8 core is the new dual core. Back when everything was one thread, a dual core would let you multitask without either of your programs slowing down. Now that a lot of applications and games are 2-4 threads(sometimes even more), you need more cores than ever if you wish to run multiple modern applications in parallel without seeing a significant performance penalty.

 

[exar333]

The OP fails to understand what cores are used for. If you have an application that fully utilizes all cores; all cores being being equal, 6 (or 8) cores are > 4.

If you application does not take advantage of more than 4 cores, then Mhz are king.

IB-E is 4Q 2012 FYI...

For the applications I am running, I definitely favor the additional cores.

SB-E 6-cores @ 4.6ghz > SB 4 cores @ 5.0ghz
IB-E 8-cores @ 4.6ghz >>> IB 4 cores @ 6.0ghz

8-core IB-E will be a HUGE performer for those who need the cores. IB, even at 6Ghz (unlikely for most) will be way behind.

OP sounds like folks who crowed about their A64 @ 3.2 ghz destroying the new dual-cores that were 'limited' to ~2.6-2.8ghz. Once the applications take advantage of the additional cores, its a whole different ballgame.

Some folks need the extra cores/threads, others do not. Depends on your situation. Sounds more like sour grapes to me from the OP.

 

[grkM3]

What are you talking about?I bet my setup at 5.5ghz will beat your x79 in any benchmark and once we hit 6hhz on 22nm 8 threads is more than enough.

What's your cinebench score at 4.6ghz? Is it over 11.4?

 

[exar333]

What are you talking about?I bet my setup at 5.5ghz will beat your x79 in any benchmark and once we hit 6hhz on 22nm 8 threads is more than enough.

What's your cinebench score at 4.6ghz? Is it over 11.4?

I don't see your setup at 5.5ghz??? No?

8 threads may be enough for you, but not enough for everyone.

Sour grapes...

 

[ncalipari]

Let's keep in mind that HT doesn't double the cores, just uses them better.

If you are already using the cores at 100%, then a quad core cpu is a quad thread cpu, not eight.

 

[grkM3]

I don't see your setup at 5.5ghz??? No?

8 threads may be enough for you, but not enough for everyone.

Sour grapes...

I can bench it that high and run it at 5ghz 24/7.you don't get it,I rather have 8 threads at higher clocks than more cores at lower clocks.

If ivy will let us run 6gh on water than every thing you do with your 6 core will be faster on the quad from the clock speed advantage

 

[Arachnotronic]

Let's keep in mind that HT doesn't double the cores, just uses them better.

If you are already using the cores at 100%, then a quad core cpu is a quad thread cpu, not eight.

This is all kinds of false.

 

[RavenSEAL]

AMD Marketing Team on line 1.

 

[Diogenes2]

...
What's your cinebench score at 4.6ghz? Is it over 11.4?

Not shown in sig yet, but my 3930 at 4.6 Cinebench is over 13.

I'll throw up a screenie tonight.. ( If it matters ... )

 

[grkM3]

Not shown in sig yet, but my 3930 at 4.6 Cinebench is over 13.

I'll throw up a screenie tonight.. ( If it matters ... )

if you can throw one up with your memory run in aida 64.I wonder if quad channel is helping in this bench vs dual channel.

It would take a very high clock ivy to hit 13 but I think people will break 12s with water cooling and mid 11s with air.

 

[ed29a]

What are you talking about?I bet my setup at 5.5ghz will beat your x79 in any benchmark and once we hit 6hhz on 22nm 8 threads is more than enough.

What's your cinebench score at 4.6ghz? Is it over 11.4?

Oh yeah!?!?! Well ... MY DAD CAN BEAT UP YOUR DAD!

 

[Grooveriding]

Whine thread created out of hardware insecurity.

A little faster than your GhZ. And a little over 50% faster than your chip's score. 50% more cores, 50% more threads. 50% more performance where it can be utilized.

Not that I could care less but your OP begs a good counter.

 

[tweakboy]

The OP fails to understand what cores are used for. If you have an application that fully utilizes all cores; all cores being being equal, 6 (or 8) cores are > 4.

If you application does not take advantage of more than 4 cores, then Mhz are king.

IB-E is 4Q 2012 FYI...

For the applications I am running, I definitely favor the additional cores.

SB-E 6-cores @ 4.6ghz > SB 4 cores @ 5.0ghz
IB-E 8-cores @ 4.6ghz >>> IB 4 cores @ 6.0ghz

8-core IB-E will be a HUGE performer for those who need the cores. IB, even at 6Ghz (unlikely for most) will be way behind.

OP sounds like folks who crowed about their A64 @ 3.2 ghz destroying the new dual-cores that were 'limited' to ~2.6-2.8ghz. Once the applications take advantage of the additional cores, its a whole different ballgame.

Some folks need the extra cores/threads, others do not. Depends on your situation. Sounds more like sour grapes to me from the OP.

Nice post brother,, Soo I guess your confirming, Ivy Bridge will be up to 8 core plus HT for 16 core desktop CPU's ?

If so,, this is good once again for DAW or for video rendering /editing etc..

 

[exar333]

Nice post brother,, Soo I guess your confirming, Ivy Bridge will be up to 8 core plus HT for 16 core desktop CPU's ?

If so,, this is good once again for DAW or for video rendering /editing etc..

Agreed.

I never said more cores is >>>>>> for everything. If you need the extra cores, they are useful. Otherwise, Mhz is what you need. Many people don't need either, they are just fine with a 3.0ghz duallie or 3.5ghz quad for what they do (like many games, productivity stuff, etc).

If all I did was game, I would have stayed on my i7 920 ~3.8ghz and purchased 2-3 GTX 580's and called it a day.

 

[Ben90]

Whine thread created out of hardware insecurity.

A little faster than your GhZ. And a little over 50% faster than your chip's score. 50% more cores, 50% more threads. 50% more performance where it can be utilized.

Not that I could care less but your OP begs a good counter.

What a worthless comment. Everyone knows a Cinebench score over 11.4 means its the fastest processor in the world and anything higher is useless and you don't use the rest of the threads on your computer and my computer is still faster though except for this one bench and any others you may show but if yours is faster than it doesn't matter because I'm one of those people that always changes the rules and. and. and...

 

[Concillian]

Apps that scale well with lots of cores tend to do better on performance per watt with lots of slow cores than a fewer fast cores.

Apss that scale poorly with lots of cores do better with fewer fast cores.

It's like...rocket science or something. Buy for the software you use. Most people don't regularly use stuff right now that taxes more than 2-4 cores at a time. There are chips for that (LGA1155) Some do, and there are chips for that too (AM3+, LGA1366, LGA2011)

 

[janas19]

Apps that scale well with lots of cores tend to do better on performance per watt with lots of slow cores than a fewer fast cores.

Apss that scale poorly with lots of cores do better with fewer fast cores.

It's like...rocket science or something. Buy for the software you use. Most people don't regularly use stuff right now that taxes more than 2-4 cores at a time. There are chips for that (LGA1155) Some do, and there are chips for that too (AM3+, LGA1366, LGA2011)

:thumbsup:

 

[notty22]

nv mind.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I don't know the ans. To this question . S0 I will ask . Do you people actually Browse the net using your gaming setups . My gamer is a power pig. even tho its a 2600K . It still usees way more power than my 2500K. I o/ced it for about a 3 months befor I set it back to stock . I haven't noticed any differance unless C 11.5 counts

 

[aigomorla]

I think 22nm ivys are going to give there big brothers some serious comp once they hit the streets.I dont see why anyone would need more than 8 threads since there is almost nothing out there that would take advantage of them over bragging rights.

I can score over 10 pts on my 2600k in cinebench and thats only at 5.15 ghz and at 5.5 it gets over 11 pts

I would rather take higher clocks than more than 4 cores anyday and I think the 22nm are going to smoke the 6 core sandy Es once people clock them up.

a ivy at 6+ghz will beat out a sandy E at almost any bench just from the raw clock horse power we will get.

here is my 24/7 system running cinebench.Why would someone spend 1k on a sandy e when a 22nm ivy will do just as well once overclocked?

This is where i shatter your assessment.

Sorry gulftown can do that with more cores at a conservative voltage even which would outlast your 2600k by probably a factor of 3 if you need over 1.45Vcore to get 5ghz +.

More CORES for me over faster GHZ past 4ghz please.....

Your ignoring the larger core monsters can also CLOCK pretty well, if they are intel.

Again why u see me still on this 990X and havent upgraded yet...

But i agree with you... haswell / ivy-b will dominate... and that's what i intend to go on.
10c/20T 30meg cache cpu please!!!!!!!!!!