If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
I'm curious about why there's the AMD FX-8320 Vishera with an Eight-Core
running 3.5 GHZ ($180), while there's also the AMD FX-4300 Vishera with a Quad-Core running 3.8 GHz. Why is the Quad-Core rated at a higher clock speed than the more expensive Eight-Core, not to mention the Six-Core FX-6300, which is also rated at 3.5 GHz? The FX-8320 might be more than I want to spend, but I could get the FX-6300; it's only $10 more than the FX-4300 on newegg.com. ...though the FX-4300 was only about $79 or $89 a couple of weeks ago. I need choose something soon before it goes up in price again. Is a Six-Core at 3.5 GHz going to be faster, overall, than a Quad-Core running 3.8 GHz? Damaeus |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:42:37 -0600, Damaeus wrote:
Is a Six-Core at 3.5 GHz going to be faster, overall, than a Quad-Core running 3.8 GHz? Depends on the threads running. If all 6 cores can be used to the max then the effective speed is 3.5x6, or 21Ghz, while only 4 is 4x3.8, or 15.2Ghz. So the 6 core is potentially 30% faster. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
In news:alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, Wes Newell
posted on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 03:43:47 +0000 (UTC) the following: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:42:37 -0600, Damaeus wrote: Is a Six-Core at 3.5 GHz going to be faster, overall, than a Quad-Core running 3.8 GHz? Depends on the threads running. If all 6 cores can be used to the max then the effective speed is 3.5x6, or 21Ghz, while only 4 is 4x3.8, or 15.2Ghz. So the 6 core is potentially 30% faster. Okay, thanks. That makes sense. Learning all the time. I was using a dual-core before I built this temporary system that only has one core. It's extremely painful to use. I'm going with the 6-core. The 8-core is a little out of my reach with the other stuff I need. Damaeus |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
On 12/28/2012 02:13 AM, Damaeus wrote:
In news:alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, Wes Newell posted on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 03:43:47 +0000 (UTC) the following: On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:42:37 -0600, Damaeus wrote: Is a Six-Core at 3.5 GHz going to be faster, overall, than a Quad-Core running 3.8 GHz? Depends on the threads running. If all 6 cores can be used to the max then the effective speed is 3.5x6, or 21Ghz, while only 4 is 4x3.8, or 15.2Ghz. So the 6 core is potentially 30% faster. Okay, thanks. That makes sense. Learning all the time. I was using a dual-core before I built this temporary system that only has one core. It's extremely painful to use. I'm going with the 6-core. The 8-core is a little out of my reach with the other stuff I need. For an ordinary desktop user, there is a great advantage in shifting to a dual-core cpu from single-core. Beyond dual-core, the benefit of more cores depends on how many processes are running and how long they need to run at a time for high throughput If you have a lot of processes going and several that need a core for long periods of time at a stretch (relatively, of course, in cpu time -- not long by user time), more cores will do better. But generally, gains beyond dual-core are usually not apparent and the added overhead can in fact slow things down. I have a couple of machines, one dual-core and one eight-core, both running the same OS, very similar configuration, and similar workload. The dual-core is actually much snappier in response time most of the time, but when it gets overloaded (copying massive files while browsing the 'Net or other multiple heavy loads) it will bog down. The eight-core is slightly slower but smoother in response time and never ever gets bogged down enough to affect more than the one process that is hogging a core. There is also the consideration that four and six core cpus often were manufactured as eight-core, and cores that failed QA tests were disabled. If some of the cores failed, it can suggest a problem with the entire piece of silicon. That usually shows up as an infant death, though, so at worst you might need to go through the return-merchadise-authorization routine to get a replacement. Cheers! jim b. -- UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely expects users to be computer-friendly. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
On 27/12/2012 7:42 PM, Damaeus wrote:
I'm curious about why there's the AMD FX-8320 Vishera with an Eight-Core running 3.5 GHZ ($180), while there's also the AMD FX-4300 Vishera with a Quad-Core running 3.8 GHz. Why is the Quad-Core rated at a higher clock speed than the more expensive Eight-Core, not to mention the Six-Core FX-6300, which is also rated at 3.5 GHz? Well, the more cores there are, the more heat the chip overall generates. They attempt to stay within a certain power consumption window with these chips, for example 95W. A chip with only 4 cores will be consuming less power overall, therefore its clock can be cranked up a bit more and it can still stay within the 95W power limits, than a chip with 6 or 8 cores. 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 turbo frequencies are a temporarily higher frequency that can be applied to one or two cores at a time as the need arises, so those cores would be running faster than the base frequency. Without looking it up, I'm betting that the turbo frequency of the 8 core would be 4.0GHz, while the turbo frequency of the 6 core would be about 200Mhz more at 4.2GHz. That's again because a 6 core would be generating less heat than the 8 core, so it can have a higher turbo speed. The FX-8320 might be more than I want to spend, but I could get the FX-6300; it's only $10 more than the FX-4300 on newegg.com. ...though the FX-4300 was only about $79 or $89 a couple of weeks ago. I need choose something soon before it goes up in price again. 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. Yousuf Khan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
In news:alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, Jim Beard
posted on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:54:19 -0500 the following: There is also the consideration that four and six core cpus often were manufactured as eight-core, and cores that failed QA tests were disabled. If some of the cores failed, it can suggest a problem with the entire piece of silicon. That usually shows up as an infant death, though, so at worst you might need to go through the return-merchadise-authorization routine to get a replacement. Great Scott!!!! Why do they DO these things to us???? "Let's just sell this defective chip and hope we don't get it back." I could just throw up and eat it. I liked my dual-core processor. I assumed a six-core would be even better. I like having more than enough. Even if all I wanted to do is read e-mail and play Solitaire, I'd want something capable of running all the latest games. But I DO want to play some of the latest games, so I got this stuff. Oh man... I had no idea of the sneaky, underhanded tactics that are being used to sell rejects as lower models to ignorant consumers. No wonder so many computer parts have about 25% of the people saying they suck. Damaeus |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
In news:alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, Yousuf Khan
posted on Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:03:08 -0500 the following: Well, the more cores there are, the more heat the chip overall generates. They attempt to stay within a certain power consumption window with these chips, for example 95W. A chip with only 4 cores will be consuming less power overall, therefore its clock can be cranked up a bit more and it can still stay within the 95W power limits, than a chip with 6 or 8 cores. 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 The turbo frequencies are a temporarily higher frequency that can be applied to one or two cores at a time as the need arises, so those cores would be running faster than the base frequency. Without looking it up, I'm betting that the turbo frequency of the 8 core would be 4.0GHz, while the turbo frequency of the 6 core would be about 200Mhz more at 4.2GHz. That's again because a 6 core would be generating less heat than the 8 core, so it can have a higher turbo speed. 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. Damaeus posted: 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. As for Facebook games, sometimes I like to have a couple or three games running in different tabs in the browser. I imagine more cores will come in handy just for that alone. This single-core processor will barely run one game at a time, and it doesn't do that well. What flows like chocolate syrup on my friend's computer looks like a stuttering annoyance on this machine. My old dual-core ran the same games even more fluidly than my friend's computer, and they're both dual-cores. Mine had a dedicated GeForce 7950GTOC, while his is an integrated Intel G31/33 integrated in the motherboard's chipset. His won't even display Farmville 2 properly. Many of the Farmville 2 game elements are completely missing on his, both static elements and animations. On this single-core machine, there's one game that even causes my mouse to intermittently hang just because of a Flash advertisement running on the same web page. Still, just the fact that each core runs at 3.5GHz core is still going to be better than the 2.2 GHz dual-core it's really replacing, not counting this dreadful single-core 1.83 GHz one. If I had it to do over again, I might have just gone with the quad-core after all I've learned. But I figured that since the six-core was only ten dollars more, why not go for it. Hopefully it'll just work as it's supposed to without giving me any problems. I'm sure it'll be generally faster and I will still be happy with it since it'll be faster than the rig that died, and much faster than this piece of garbage I'm using now. This would make a fine dedicated word processor and web browser, but it's not even fit for the simplest browser games. Damaeus |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
On 12/30/2012 05:33 AM, Damaeus wrote:
In news:alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, Jim Beard posted on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:54:19 -0500 the following: There is also the consideration that four and six core cpus often were manufactured as eight-core, and cores that failed QA tests were disabled. If some of the cores failed, it can suggest a problem with the entire piece of silicon. That usually shows up as an infant death, though, so at worst you might need to go through the return-merchadise-authorization routine to get a replacement. Great Scott!!!! Why do they DO these things to us???? "Let's just sell this defective chip and hope we don't get it back." I could just throw up and eat it. No need to do that. If you want a chip that passed all QA tests, pay full price for the 8-core cpu. If you decide saving money is important to you, you can buy a cpu that has 4 or 6 cores that passed QA tests, and one or more that did not. The ones that did not have been disabled, and do nothing more than take up room on the chip. There is a slightly higher risk of infant death for a cpu known to have one or more defects (there could be another, that QA did not catch), but there is a risk of infant death for all cpus. Why scrap a cpu with less than 8 cores that passed but that likely will provide good service for its entire design service-life? Why not sell it at a discount, and let both manufacturer and buyer benefit (the manufacturer gets something though not full price, and the buyer gets a good chip that will be replaced if it goes bad -- cheap). Cheers! jim b. -- UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely expects users to be computer-friendly. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
FX-4300 FX-6300 FX-8320 Speed Differences
In news:alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64, Jim Beard
posted on Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:00:08 -0500 the following: If you decide saving money is important to you, I wish I didn't have to worry about money. If I had more to spend, I wouldn't care about saving it. But since I only had $827 to spend on new parts, I had to skimp on cores in case I have to get another hard drive. And, of course, I needed the motherboard and memory, plus I had to get a new SATA DVD drive/burner since all I have is the a couple of the old IDE types. And then there was Windows 8, full version OEM. I had two identical Western Digital 320GB SATA hard drives, but one went bad within two years. I'm still using the other one. In the rig I'm replacing, I was running only that one drive with two partitions. Now that I'm going to try to run Win8 64-bit and WinXP 32-bit on different partitions, I might need a second drive, and I'm going to try a solid-state drive if I actually need to get one. Perhaps I can get a 120GB SSD and give 80GB to Windows 8 and 40GB to Windows XP, since hopefully all I'll have on WinXP is Final Fantasy XI. Then I'll have the full 320GB drive for data. But then, I also need to replace my video capture board. I can do that for $42. And it would be nice to have front-panel USB ports with a MicroSD card-reader. I had very little luck finding a front-panel unit that has card readers and more than one USB port. Most had one USB port. One had three, but the reviews were horrible, and one reviewer said that his MicroSD card went into the slot so far that you'd definitely need fingernails to get it out. My friend's PC has a MicroSD reader and the card still sticks out about 5/8 of an inch when it's recognized by his computer. you can buy a cpu that has 4 or 6 cores that passed QA tests, and one or more that did not. The ones that did not have been disabled, and do nothing more than take up room on the chip. I just assumed, incorrectly, apparently, that a six-core chip had six cores and they all passed with flying colors. [...] Why scrap a cpu with less than 8 cores that passed but that likely will provide good service for its entire design service-life? Why not sell it at a discount, and let both manufacturer and buyer benefit (the manufacturer gets something though not full price, and the buyer gets a good chip that will be replaced if it goes bad -- cheap). Yes, that would be nice. I'll save my receipts, as usual. Damaeus |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CAS 2 vs. CAS 3 speed differences in RAM with Athlon 64? | gerry | Asus Motherboards | 0 | September 26th 04 01:37 AM |
CAS 2 vs. CAS 3 speed differences in RAM with Athlon 64? | turtle | AMD x86-64 Processors | 0 | September 22nd 04 04:21 AM |
CAS 2 vs. CAS 3 speed differences in RAM with Athlon 64? | Courseyauto | Asus Motherboards | 0 | September 20th 04 11:42 AM |
CAS 2 vs. CAS 3 speed differences in RAM with Athlon 64? | Paul | Asus Motherboards | 0 | September 20th 04 05:14 AM |