• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

How many cores can I really use?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

GMdoubleG

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Location
Sacramento, Ca
Hi all,

My apologies if this topic has been covered fully and I didn't see it but I am wondering with all the new 6 and 8 core CPUs if I need to get one. I have an older i7-920 and compatible MoBo from when it was first released. I have been seeing a lot of good deals on 6 core and 8 core FX CPUs at much higher stock clock rates then mine is now so I am pondering an upgrade.

I realize this depends a lot on the software I use and the only thing I ever do that I can tell uses the multiple cores is audio converting. I do run multiple programs at a time but I believe they all individually only use one core. Can Win7 Pro put the extra cores to use?

I'm specifically thinking about the deal in today's Newegg ad (1/31/14) for the AMD FX-9370 for $199.99. It's clocked at 4.4Ghz which I know I can use but at 220W. Is it worth it?

I haven't read up on CPUs since I purchased my i7-920 so I am really out of the loop. Any readings you guys can forward me would be awesome. I'm not looking top end but around $300-$350 for CPU/MoBo is what I'm thinking.

Thanks!
 
Short answer, no.


Win7 doesn't care. Your audio conversion program looks like the only candidate to take advantage of any increase of core count. You can perform a lot of math to determine the throughput and efficiency increase of going to more cores, but if you're pleased with the current performance of your system, why bother?


I don't notice an SSD in your sig. Maybe that would be a nice upgrade if you don't have one.


Of course it's your wallet. If you have the itch, scratch.
 
Yes. I just purchaseda 120GB SSD. I figured that was a must for my OS drive. I don't have a huge urge to get something huge but I would like a little more clock speed for all the other things I'm doing. The number of coresis a curiosity.
 
What Robert says.

You can also grab a good air cooler and take your CP to3.7/3.8GHz (maybe 4/4.1).

It's still a very capable processor, and no upgrade is worth unless you consider Intel z77 or z87 chipset (3770k/4770k).
 
Yea. I firgured I'd get something in the z77-z87 range, either AMD or intel equivalents.

The only reason I am not OCing mine now is my MoBo seems to not want to do anything but a stock clock speed. I've had it at 3.6 for a few years but it keeps posting fail to any OC I try. I think the MoBo is failing slowly but I'm also not sure how to check.
 
I recommend NOT going for the 9370. They just put out so much heat. I built a friends comp with a 9370 and an h100i (black friday deal! 170 for the 9370), and he's not able to really do any kind of overclocking at all. He's up to 4.8ghz and Im at 4.51 on my 8320. The performance gains are negligable, and with water cooling, I can easily hit 5.0ghz on my chip on this board. I would suggest if an 8320 or 8350 goes on sale, that and a decent water cooler is going to be superior to the 9370.
 
Ok. I'm actually getting away from water cooling for a bit. Selling off my systems. I might keepsome stuff for future. What about a good air cooler?
 
GMdoubleG, If you're are considering getting an FX 6/8/9 Cpu read this thread. These chips require a good motherboard to run well. The 6xxx isn't as demanding as the 8/9xxx but it still needs a good motherboard, especially if you're planning on overclocking.
 
Ok. I wasn't necessarily going FX. It was juat on a big sale on Newegg. I'm very open and doing research. I think I'll avoid anything with mpre than 4 cores. I can't use them with my setup.
 
Honestly, the whole 4+4 (hyper threading) and 6-8 core cpu's are still pretty "new" in the grand scheme of things. With the xbox1 and ps4 being 8 cored, I can imagine games and programs are going to start being optimized to be used for 4+ cores.

Id still go the 3570k route if it were in your budget honestly, and if you're thinking of spending 200 on a 9370 and another 180 on the motherboard that supports it + the NEEDED watercooling another 100 bucks, you really are better off going the i5 route.

If you want the best bang for the buck, 83x0's are where its at imo.
 
I didn't realize that the 9370 required that kind of MoBo. I won't be pushing any CPU I get past maybe a 10-15% OC, nothing to taxing.

Is the 83x0 an AMD or Intel?

Thanks for the help. I realize I'm not well read on the subject which is my fault. I've just been seeing good deals and getting to the point of needing to upgrade.
 
I didn't realize that the 9370 required that kind of MoBo. I won't be pushing any CPU I get past maybe a 10-15% OC, nothing to taxing.

Is the 83x0 an AMD or Intel?

Thanks for the help. I realize I'm not well read on the subject which is my fault. I've just been seeing good deals and getting to the point of needing to upgrade.


fx8320 and fx8350, both are AM3+ AMD cores. They also need "Beefy" motherboards, but I bought my fx8320 for 129$ and I am using the 134$ 990fx fatal1ty killer (i have an ongoing review on the amd motherboard section). I made a mistake of getting an m5a97 mother board which claims to "support' the fx8320, but it burned out mighty quickly, less than 2 weeks of use.

I am overclocked to 4.51ghz from 3.5ghz stock clock. While only a 23% overclock, my benchmarks are around 30% faster. Probably mostly due to increased single core perfromance. At 5.0ghz I am around 40-50% faster depending on the benchmark, however I will not run the core that hot for a daily beater.


That said, for gaming, theres really no difference from that 500mhz I've noticed. I may be getting a few extra fps, but nothing staggering.


Honestly, I was in your shoes about 2 months ago, just keep reading and digging up what you need vs what you "want". If the 8320 is all you need, then get that. If you "need" better single core performance, then get the i5. For gaming, your GPU is still going to matter more, and if you can get a better graphics card going the AMD route, thats what I would do.
 
83x0 stands for FX8320 and FX8350, both AMD Piledrivers.

Don't excpect any kind of OC on a 8 Cores FX with a sub $150 board, and a sub $50 cooler.

These chips run hot and stress VRM's big time.

I'd go 4670k/4770k on a decent (+/-) z87 board, with a hyper 212 cooler.

This kind of combo will allow for a 4.1/4.2GHz OC. More if you get a better cooler (eg. Noctua NH-D14).

If you really want to go the AMD route, the 6 cores FX6300 seems a good choice, as it draws less power and heat and doesn't need sych a beefy motherboard. An Asur m5A99 evo or pro, together with a 212 EVo would do the job of getting a decent OC.
 
83x0 stands for FX8320 and FX8350, both AMD Piledrivers.

Don't excpect any kind of OC on a 8 Cores FX with a sub $150 board, and a sub $50 cooler.

These chips run hot and stress VRM's big time.

I'd go 4670k/4770k on a decent (+/-) z87 board, with a hyper 212 cooler.

This kind of combo will allow for a 4.1/4.2GHz OC. More if you get a better cooler (eg. Noctua NH-D14).

If you really want to go the AMD route, the 6 cores FX6300 seems a good choice, as it draws less power and heat and doesn't need sych a beefy motherboard. An Asur m5A99 evo or pro, together with a 212 EVo would do the job of getting a decent OC.

Not to be a nay sayer... but nay good sir!

129$ for my 8320, 134$ for my fatal1ty killer, 30$ hyper 212 evo. running fantastic overclocked @ 4.51ghz... still agree with the intel route if its in his budget though.
 
Not to be a nay sayer... but nay good sir!

129$ for my 8320, 134$ for my fatal1ty killer, 30$ hyper 212 evo. running fantastic overclocked @ 4.51ghz... still agree with the intel route if its in his budget though.

You've been lucky with your 8320: I followed your Asrock Killer thread ;)

Low voltage low temp...

My Hyper 212 Evo hardly keeps the temps of my FX6300 in line from 4.6GHz and up (not the best chip).

This HSf would struggle with an average 8320.
 
if your looking to upgrade for the longer term, it's intel as the socket for the fx processor is end of life.
if you not crunching huge numbers it's not the way to go.

the new amd apu's are too new and not much in software out there to make use of it.
 
Yes, the 6 and 8 cores would be a waste for me. I can't even use the four cores except for the minimal. Music coding I do for FLAC files. I've always been an intel guy but didn't want to immediately disregard the AMDs.

Are the intels i5s a dual core processor with two more virtual cores? Cooling won't be an issue. I've decided to stay with water cooling and just change up my loops.
 
Going from a 920 to an i5 dual core/HT would be some kind of a downgrade. And these are not overclockable (no "k" version, only 4670k and 4770k).

The 4670k would be the piece of choice in your case, it seems.

And a nice overclock would extend your CPU performance over time.
 
Back