On 30/12/2012 6:02 AM, Damaeus wrote:
In news:alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, Yousuf Khan
posted on Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:03:08 -0500 the
following:
Now as for the 6& 8 core chips having the same base frequency of
3.5GHz, I'm willing to bet that the 6-core has a slightly higher turbo
frequency than the 8-core.

The six-core turbo speed is 100 MHz faster than one of the eight-core
turbo speeds, but the other eight-core turbo speed is 100MHz faster than
the six-core turbo speed. The list is below:

Here's a list of the four Vishera AM3+ CPUs from the Newegg.com website:

AMD FX-8350 Vishera 4.0GHz (4.2GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core
AMD FX-8320 Vishera 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 125W Eight-Core
AMD FX-6300 Vishera 3.5GHz (4.1GHz Turbo) Socket AM3+ 95W Six-Core
AMD FX-4300 Vishera 3.8GHz (4.0GHz [Turbo]) Socket AM3+ 95W Quad-Core

In the case of the 8320 vs. 8350, that's usually down to a result of
"bin-splitting" which is in a tray full of otherwise identical
processors, some of them will just naturally be able to run at higher
frequencies. The factory tests each chip at certain speeds and sorts
them according to their maximum reliable speeds.

As long as the factory heatsink and the heat transfer material they apply
to it works, I'm happy. I have a little vial of Arctic Silver, however,
that I used on my still-older computer, an Abit KT7A-RAID machine. But
once I put a heatsink on, I don't like to take it off unless I just have
to. If a six-core processor really is a defective eight-core processor,
maybe they shipped it with a heatsink and thermal compound that's also
suited for an eight-core processor. My dual-core machine had no heat
issues with the CPU whatsoever, and I just left the factory thermal pad do
what it was designed to do. Since I won't be overclocking, I'm planning
to do the same with the new build.

For the most part you should just let the factory thermal pad do its
work. You'll only need the Arctic Silver if you plan to replace the
factory heat sink with an aftermarket one.

Is a Six-Core at 3.5 Ghz going to be faster, overall, than a Quad-Core
running 3.8 Ghz?

It depends on your workload. If you have a lot of programs running in
the background, then the more cores there are, the better. If on the
other hand, you just want your foreground program to run at its fastest
possible speed, then it's likely that a lesser number of cores with
faster cores might be the better way to go.

I see the point now. I don't typically do a LOT of multitasking, but
sometimes I do. I do play some Facebook games, and those are amazingly
processor-intensive. I know it ran my dual-core processor fluctuating
between 35% and 60%, even more than Final Fantasy XI, which is a real,
full-screen video game.

I don't think any of the facebook apps will be much of a challenge to
any one of these cores. A world of difference between the old Athlon 64
X2 and these FX chips.


Yousuf Khan