AMD Six core or the Intel i5

[VisualSeven]

I'd get myself a six core in this situation, I don't see why not, the i5 doesn't have anything extraordinary that the six core doesn't have besides of the turbo technology which I find useless, if you play on doing overclocking however then I don't know which would be better I know the i5 is good for overclocking but I don't know anything about the six core, if it can be stable on higher frequencies or how much it heats

ok i will prolly go for the amd

btw 100 posts.

[Blackbox]

Go for the i5.

As for the whole 4vs6 debate. Dual cores really aren't being taken advantage of, and there's been no new technology released for a long time now. It'll be a while before 4 or even 6 cores for that matter are worth it, and by then we'll probably have 8-12+ core CPU's which will be mostly useless other than microseconds of time in benchmark tests.

[yjlasher22]

Firstly don't use the in five years time argument cause by the time five years are up technology maybe headed for a new direction. If you love amd then go for that chip. If you are overclocking then go for the i5. Six cores aren't really useful since the processor isn't the bottle neck most of the time and also from what I understand it is quite difficult to code good multi threaded applications

[jMerliN]

Firstly don't use the in five years time argument cause by the time five years are up technology maybe headed for a new direction. If you love amd then go for that chip. If you are overclocking then go for the i5. Six cores aren't really useful since the processor isn't the bottle neck most of the time and also from what I understand it is quite difficult to code good multi threaded applications

It's prohibitively difficult to write parallel algorithms that achieve a large increase in performance. Many algorithms are stateful and can only achieve very slight increases in performance, trivially parallelizable problems are already deployed heavily across all available cores or even thousands to millions of cpus (for instance, google's search engine).

If we have a massive, and I mean MASSIVE breakthrough in the area of multi-threaded algorithms research that allows a much higher scalability factor to be reached with common algorithms, then the usage of multicore systems will become more efficient. Right now, the best advice to people writing software on multicore machines is to split logical tasks into threads that can run at the same time and for ones that have resource contention, use smart locks to increase performance slightly.

We presently rarely use more than 20% of a single CPU except in highly intensive applications. And that usage usually only happens for a brief time for bursting, exceptions to this rule are things like databases, server software, rendering software, games, almost all forms of compression, etc. Being able to utilize multiple threads more efficiently will mean work is done faster, so the CPU burst will require a similar amount of work as present (assuming a perfect scalability factor) but will require far less burst time to finish a job.

All in all, CPU usage will very slightly increase from now to 5 years from now when people start using their CPUs to do more and more intensive tasks, and some games will add physics and other fun stuff that'll require more CPU, but there's no way in hell at the current rate of software development that we'll need any more than a dual core in 5 years except with the applications that already benefit from 4. The reason for this is summed up most effectively in the first video lecture in the algorithms class for MIT in OCW: MIT OpenCourseWare | Electrical Engineering and Computer Science | 6.046J Introduction to Algorithms (SMA 5503), Fall 2005 | Video Lectures | Lecture 1: Administrivia; Introduction; Analysis of Algorithms, Insertion Sort, Mergesort. After the administrivia, he asks the students to tell him what's more important than algorithm optimization. As it turns out, almost everything is. And those other things don't require a lot of CPU time, and that trend isn't going to change in the near future. In fact, some parallel algorithms actually perform better than the most efficiently known single-core algorithm (cumulatively), resulting in a net reduction in CPU usage. So this "in a few years we'll need more CPUs" argument has never held and it's not going to. In reality, having more cores makes you able to run more programs at once that actually do things, and it doesn't affect much else. The theory behind things like lock-free and wait-free data structures is awesome though, and everyone should check it out, and watch those lectures through the parallel algorithms (I believe they're covered there, because they are in the accompanying text). It gives a lot of insight into that particular area of computing.

[VisualSeven]

It's prohibitively difficult to write parallel algorithms that achieve a large increase in performance. Many algorithms are stateful and can only achieve very slight increases in performance, trivially parallelizable problems are already deployed heavily across all available cores or even thousands to millions of cpus (for instance, google's search engine).

If we have a massive, and I mean MASSIVE breakthrough in the area of multi-threaded algorithms research that allows a much higher scalability factor to be reached with common algorithms, then the usage of multicore systems will become more efficient. Right now, the best advice to people writing software on multicore machines is to split logical tasks into threads that can run at the same time and for ones that have resource contention, use smart locks to increase performance slightly.

We presently rarely use more than 20% of a single CPU except in highly intensive applications. And that usage usually only happens for a brief time for bursting, exceptions to this rule are things like databases, server software, rendering software, games, almost all forms of compression, etc. Being able to utilize multiple threads more efficiently will mean work is done faster, so the CPU burst will require a similar amount of work as present (assuming a perfect scalability factor) but will require far less burst time to finish a job.

All in all, CPU usage will very slightly increase from now to 5 years from now when people start using their CPUs to do more and more intensive tasks, and some games will add physics and other fun stuff that'll require more CPU, but there's no way in hell at the current rate of software development that we'll need any more than a dual core in 5 years except with the applications that already benefit from 4. The reason for this is summed up most effectively in the first video lecture in the algorithms class for MIT in OCW: MIT OpenCourseWare | Electrical Engineering and Computer Science | 6.046J Introduction to Algorithms (SMA 5503), Fall 2005 | Video Lectures | Lecture 1: Administrivia; Introduction; Analysis of Algorithms, Insertion Sort, Mergesort. After the administrivia, he asks the students to tell him what's more important than algorithm optimization. As it turns out, almost everything is. And those other things don't require a lot of CPU time, and that trend isn't going to change in the near future. In fact, some parallel algorithms actually perform better than the most efficiently known single-core algorithm (cumulatively), resulting in a net reduction in CPU usage. So this "in a few years we'll need more CPUs" argument has never held and it's not going to. In reality, having more cores makes you able to run more programs at once that actually do things, and it doesn't affect much else. The theory behind things like lock-free and wait-free data structures is awesome though, and everyone should check it out, and watch those lectures through the parallel algorithms (I believe they're covered there, because they are in the accompanying text). It gives a lot of insight into that particular area of computing.

All of reading but i read it, But then if its a six core wouldnt a game run better? like blackops i got 3.20GHz Dual core and it fucking stutters but on the requirements it says like amd athlon x2 2.60GHz or something and i still lag. and my gpu only gets used about 30% and cpu is at 90-100% most of the time

[Rishwin]

All of reading but i read it, But then if its a six core wouldnt a game run better? like blackops i got 3.20GHz Dual core and it fucking stutters but on the requirements it says like amd athlon x2 2.60GHz or something and i still lag. and my gpu only gets used about 30% and cpu is at 90-100% most of the time

If you actually did read his post, then you would have your answer.

Games primarily only use 1 core. Vista and Windows 7 have the ability to use multiple cores for a single application, however there are next to ZERO games out there which currently support this.

Your lag is coming from somewhere else, it has nothing to do with your CPU.

Yes 6 cores would be better if you multitask ALOT and run 5-6 programs at once, or if you have a server. For a gaming PC, idealistically you don't even need anything more than a dual core. Hence why for a gaming PC, the i5 760 is the best candidate over the AMD chips because of its overclocking potential.

[VisualSeven]

If you actually did read his post, then you would have your answer.

Games primarily only use 1 core. Vista and Windows 7 have the ability to use multiple cores for a single application, however there are next to ZERO games out there which currently support this.

Your lag is coming from somewhere else, it has nothing to do with your CPU.

Yes 6 cores would be better if you multitask ALOT and run 5-6 programs at once, or if you have a server. For a gaming PC, idealistically you don't even need anything more than a dual core. Hence why for a gaming PC, the i5 760 is the best candidate over the AMD chips because of its overclocking potential.

ok then when i look on my g15 keyboard and both of my cores are at 100% and my gpu is at 30-45 the most.

[themasher]

ok then when i look on my g15 keyboard and both of my cores are at 100% and my gpu is at 30-45 the most.

that means your cpu is bottlenecking your gfx card. look at the benches i posted the i5 beat the x6 in 99% of them. more cores do not equal more power

[VisualSeven]

that means your cpu is bottlenecking your gfx card. look at the benches i posted the i5 beat the x6 in 99% of them. more cores do not equal more power

how is it bottlenecking my gfx card if its 30-40% of use?

[themasher]

the gfx card uses the cpu so its only using 30-40% cuz the cpu is fully loaded at 100%. also i syggest you ask >>here<< you will get much better help

[jMerliN]

If your CPU is that high, something is wrong on your PC. You're running shit in the background you don't need (for instance, maybe a virus scanner?) In any game that isn't 10 years old, your GPU is going to be the bottleneck.

[VisualSeven]

If your CPU is that high, something is wrong on your PC. You're running shit in the background you don't need (for instance, maybe a virus scanner?) In any game that isn't 10 years old, your GPU is going to be the bottleneck.

the game is Black Ops and i just found a very nice deal :D

http://www.microcenter.com/single_pr...uct_id=0341729 but i have to waste like 30-40 minutes to pick it up since they dont ship... for some reason and i need to waste gas still calculating prices.

[.Yoss.]

I've just read on the overclock.co.uk forums about black ops being optimized for "pure-AMD" rigs. How true this may be I don't know, but I've seen people there with two different rigs complaining that the game runs like shit on their core i5's & i7's and flawlessly on "pure-AMD(amd processor+ati/amd gfx)" rigs.

So if your dual-core is currently an intel and/or gfx card is not from amd this could be relevant.

Read here: black ops lag...... what is wrong ??? - Page 3 - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

[VisualSeven]

I've just read on the overclock.co.uk forums about black ops being optimized for "pure-AMD" rigs. How true this may be I don't know, but I've seen people there with two different rigs complaining that the game runs like shit on their core i5's & i7's and flawlessly on "pure-AMD(amd processor+ati/amd gfx)" rigs.

So if your dual-core is currently an intel and/or gfx card is not from amd this could be relevant.

Read here: black ops lag...... what is wrong ??? - Page 3 - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

Thank you for this post iam reading it now,

iam using intel cpu Dual core 3.20GHz not overlocked and EVGA GTS 450 super overclocked.

[yjlasher22]

what cpu model?