Turning off cores

[Wipeout]

I have a FX 6300, but never tried this yet. 1 core is shared between 2 modules. You can easily turn off cores in the bios, or use Windows 7 under msconfig.Would it be better to turn off ever other core. Now you have a 3 core cpu using (1) module per core. A single core per module is able to exclusively use the single execution core and cache without having to share it with the other integer core. That seems more efficient. Turning off cores on a 8350 would make it a true quad core cpu. One advantage would be less heat. Secondly, you could easily save profiles in your bios. Games that are multi-threaded like BF3 would benefit using all 8 cores, but think how many games don't benefit. Would this be a better set up for gaming ?

 

[RyanCouch]

I'm not sure that would benefit any. why would you really want to. even with my almost 4.6GHz i don't have cooling issues so. there really isn't a point. but if you can explain the logic i'm willing to try it on my 8350

and noticing your signature.
For your gamming rig i HIGHLY recommend the crosshairv formulaz and a fx8350(best combo i've ever had)

 

[RGone]

Would this be a better set up for gaming ? >> Why don't you try it and see? If it 'is' better then you will know for yourself.
RGone...

 

[Kaspa]

I could clock my FX8350 higher with 1 core per module. The only problem I had with overclocking it @ 8 cores, was no LLC and HUGE v-droop on my GA990FXA-UD5. It would be beneficial to gaming and anything else that's not too heavily threaded. Less Volts for more clocks.

 

[ShrimpBrime]

A single core per module is able to exclusively use the single execution core and cache without having to share it with the other integer core.

This won't make any difference. There's not enough transistors per integer core for single threading performance to improve even when all the Cpu cache is dedicated to a single core within a module.

You will however lower thermal output, this is true.... But I don't think your going to get 500mhz (just a number, no idea your mhz goal here) from shutting down 2 cores. And certainly shutting down more than two cores would be silly considering the Cpu is built for multitasking purposes.

In short, shutting off cores won't help it game any better.

 

[ATMINSIDE]

You would benefit more from a faster GPU than trying to get ~200MHz more out of your CPU.

 

[Johan45]

I have dropped 2 modules for gaming before. It was necessary for Prototype2 since it had issues with more than 4 cores. For what ever reason it would get stuck in missions. But the benefit was a higher clock with similar volts and heat. Instead of 4.6 I cranked it up to 5.0. I feel this could be beneficial in many games since very few would actually take advantage of 8 or even 6 cores. As S_B said I don't think you would see any benefit to disabling part of a module.

 

[caddi daddi]

for my gamming 4 cores at a higher clock works better, I run my 6300 as a quad core.


atminside is so right, a better video card will play much better than a few more mgz.

 

[EarthDog]

I thought there has been some testing on this already...I do not recall the conclusion. Have you taken a look at google?

 

[caddi daddi]

I've found plenty on this.
from what i have read, in most games 2-4 cores is it, but coming are games that can use more.
on the games that i have it's just the clock of 2 modules and the video card that matters even crossfire is no real gain and that would appear to be because it only uses the video memory from the card in slot 1.