Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm looking into building a new computer, but I am dazzled by this new technology. Nevertheless, I am intent on persevering. At what speed does a six-core processor start outperforming a quad core? It seems I could get a 3.4ghz quad core for $100 less than a 2.66ghz six core, but I honestly have absolutely no idea what that means in relative power terms. Thankfully, I found a handy chart for graphics cards, which have apparently evolved into a separate language of designations, prefixes, and counterintuitive numbering systems. So... can anyone give me a rundown on how quad core power compares to six core power?


edit- Having read half of the wikipedia entry on the multi-core processors, I am now certain that by the time I independently acquire this knowledge, the items I seek will be obsolete.

More cores:
lower relative voltage (partly due to smaller architecture)
lower operating temperature (same reason)

This allows:
more potential processing power (although not all software will utilise the quad core's potential, let alone the sixer)

This is the basic rundown of what more cores means, but when you're getting into high-performance processors they'll still use a bunch of power. This is largely irrelevant.

Look out for the front-side bus and cache size. These are what really lets the power flow. What are the specific processors? The Intel x5650 is good on paper, and I've personally see it do great work too - but that was backed up by a pair of $2000 video cards.

Both of the ones I'm looking at are AMD Phenom X2s. The six is AMD Phenom II X6 1055T Thuban 2.8GHz Socket AM3 125W Six-Core Desktop Processor HDT55TFBGRBOX .

The quad is AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor HDZ965FBGMBOX.

Well the AMD processors will certainly be cheaper. The cache is smaller than the intel chip I mentioned but I promise you won't notice.

It might stop working sooner - in my time repairing computers I've done a lot more AMDs than Intels - but I have to admit that the AMDs were usually burnt out by power users. They respond better to overclocking in my opinion but won't handle it for as long.

Do some research on the AMD chips and find out if they're having any abnormal burnout problems, but otherwise they're a safe and price-effective bet. Now that we've made the consumer jump to more-than-four-core-processors the next thing we'll see is higher clock speeds - that's how the industry tends to do things. Games these days are generally being developed for the rather tired old chipsets in current generation consoles - the models you've mentioned are more than sufficient for gaming and design application, and you're probably aware that dedicated video processors have more leverage in this department.

Bear in mind that the more 'overkill' your system is, the more potential and expensive problems you are likely to have. A rugged kick-arse four-core with a quadro nvIdiot card is more than sufficient - and a high-quality motherboard is the best investment you can make.

The quick dirty and not really useful way to compare would be to multiply number of cores by the frequency. This gives you the total speed of the processor...

...its not really useful because you usually can't utilize all those cores simultaneously for the same processes, usually 2 per, etc. but it gives you a rough idea of the relative value of what you're buying.

Ok, after reading the reviews of the 6 core, I am thoroughly convinced. Apparently it will automatically use only 3 cores in some sort of black magic ritual when speed, and not multiple cores, are required. This sounds good. The fact that most of the reviewers point out the con of 'it won't do the dishes', 'You haven't bought this yet?', and 'It kills whales, trees, and the upper atmosphere'. All of those are things I can live with in a processor. Thank you so much for the helpful explanations.

Is this a suitably rugged motherboard? ASUS M4A785TD-V EVO AM3 AMD 785G HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard Its bundled with the processor, which gives me some hope that I might not have to search much farther.

Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P AM3 would be my choice, simply because I have personally never had a Gigabyte board die before I replaced it and I always use them now. I can't say the same for ASUS.

Seriously though, if you're getting a bundle and it's better for you, it's a perfectly reputable brand. Solid capacitors are great but a bit pricey.

Eh, the package is only 30 dollars off, and I'm definitely trying to avoid as much hassle down the line as possible, while maximizing value now. Listening to the voices of experience is the most sure-fire way to do that. The model you listed isn't carried on newegg that I could find, but I did locate this one. Is it suitable? I know less about motherboards than I know about processors.

GIGABYTE GA-EP43T-USB3 LGA 775 Intel P43 USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

The new AMD processors are dissapointing. The cache sizes make a larger difference than the actual speed of the cores, and AMD's new six cores have the same size cache as the quads, whereas intel's six cores stepped up to 12megs. This means that the AMD six cores really arent going to beat their quad cores most of the time, and you certainly wont notice any performance increase. IMO, save a ton of $ and buy a 965 black edition AMD quad core, they are prolly around 120$ now. I run with an MSI 790FX-GD70. It supports the highest end DDR3, the highest power processors (it could support six cores months before they made it to the market, same as the RAM, supports up to 2166 DDR3) and it supports quad-crossfire or true dual crossfire. MSI also has the records for the highest overclocking in the world, 5.9Ghz stable I believe. Their boards are extremely efficient and extremely stable especially when overclocking. I would look into them before any other brand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
you can get a 3.2ghz quad core right now for 140$. I got the 2.8ghz quad for 90$ last year, and it has served me very well since installing windows 7.

Gitzbitah wrote:Eh, the package is only 30 dollars off, and I'm definitely trying to avoid as much hassle down the line as possible, while maximizing value now. Listening to the voices of experience is the most sure-fire way to do that. The model you listed isn't carried on newegg that I could find, but I did locate this one. Is it suitable? I know less about motherboards than I know about processors.

GIGABYTE GA-EP43T-USB3 LGA 775 Intel P43 USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

That motherboard is entirely unsuitable for any AMD chip ever, let alone a hexa core
(Its a Intel mobo from an older generation of CPU)

Theres nothing wrong with the Asus, them and Gigabyte are generally regarded as being two of the best manufacturers out there.
Mostly comes down to past experiences and brand loyalty, since you have neither do a bit of reading up on sites like Toms Hardware, and reader reviews on newegg.
I can almost guarantee you will find roughly the same amount of poitive and negative for either brand.


Edit: Incidentally, why is Gigabyte still making 775 boards? Let alone USB 3 ones, I thought they would have shifted entirely to 1156/1366 for intel by now

Just get a quad core. It's gonna be years till developers start harnessing the full power of a six core processor.