Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Is 4-core, 4.2GHz better than 6-core 3.5GHz?


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 stebbinsd

stebbinsd

  • Members
  • 255 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:44 PM

Posted 17 June 2016 - 04:31 PM

I'm currently in the market for this here upgrade kit:

 

www.newegg.com/Product/ComboBundleDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.2294171

 

It comes with an CPU that is Quad-Core, 4.2GHz. It normally sells for $89.99.

 

I found this six-core  CPU using Google Shopping:

 

https://www.dealscube.com/listing/amd-fd6300wmhkbox-fx-6300-6-core-processor-black-edition/16605?gclid=CN3Dl4aAsM0CFVBffgodEw0Agw

 

It's the exact same price, and appears to have a matching socket type.

 

If I took the 4-core CPU, sold it for $90, and used that ninety bucks to buy the 6-core CPU, would that be an upgrade? Or is there more to a CPU than just the core count and frequency?


My current build:

 

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P
Processor: AMD FX-8350
RAM: 12GB (2x2GB+8GB)
Video Card: Geforce GTX 1050ti

OS: Windows 7 64-bit Ultimate


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 smax013

smax013

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,329 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:04:44 PM

Posted 17 June 2016 - 05:15 PM

While I won't claim to be an expert on differences between specific processors, I can offer some basic thoughts.

In addition to core count and CPU clock speed, there is also that factor of processor instruction sets and other factors. It is there other factors that can make a new generation of AMD or Intel CPUs faster (or less power hungry or other "improvements") than the older generation.

Even if all things are equal (i.e. the two CPUs are from the same "generation"), cores vs. clock speed will come down to whether or not the OS and/or programs can take advantage of multiple cores. If they cannot, then a faster clock speed will be better.

For example, this link gives some comparison information between your current processor and the AMD FX-4350:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/240/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Pentium_Dual-Core_G3220.html

Here is a comparison between the FX-4350 and the FX-6300:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/300/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300.html

And here is a comparison between your current CPU and the FX-6300:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/237/AMD_FX-Series_FX-6300_vs_Intel_Pentium_Dual-Core_G3220.html

#3 Zone_86

Zone_86

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:44 PM

Posted 17 June 2016 - 06:33 PM

Is that kit for an upgrade to your current system? I ask because if it is I would not recommend that - with the Z87 you have you can simply update the BIOS you have and drop in a 4690k/4790k. If this is a kit you are doing for a second system or for someone else as the builder, I would say that the difference between the FX 4350 and FX 6300 would not be enough to bother with -- depending on the needs of the user you would be building for. One is 95W TDP and the other is 125W TDP so that is a consideration if temperatures by using the AMD supplied fan only was being used as the FX 6300 should run a bit cooler in that regard. To answer the original question though the FX 6300 is a very slight upgrade from an FX 4350, because of that lower TDP and the every so slight performance difference. The 6 cores of the FX 6300 would help with multitasking vs. the FX 4350 as well to a small degree.



#4 LiamP5

LiamP5

  • Members
  • 330 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City, New York, USA
  • Local time:01:44 PM

Posted 17 June 2016 - 09:02 PM

Amd fx-9590 is even good reasons it has eight core, easily overclock to 5.0GHZ, good processor and i also have it too....
To achieve something first try
to get the knowledge about it.
Be happy, always try
for it
.......................Lets do it and learn from bleepingcomputer.com Never feel alone

#5 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:03:44 PM

Posted 18 June 2016 - 12:01 AM

A lot depends on the application(s) used. In all honesty unless your doing something majorly CPU intensive, you will likely never see any difference between the two of those, and if you are, if the application is designed to be used by multiple cores, then 6 core will outperform it, if it's a application that was either not designed to do so or just not completely, clock speed would.

Honestly though, these days clock speed isn't that important, I would go with the 6 core. Even if you have an older program that can't make use of all 6 cores 3.5 GHz is MORE then enough to knock them out of the water, as they are likely older ones. Software has for the most part caught up with the hardware.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users