Windows 8 and 8.1 Forums


Win 8 - four core vs. 6 core processors

  1. #11


    Posts : 419
    Windows 8.1 x64


    Intel CPU are expensive, overpriced and they have a tendency to overheat quite quickly or get very, very hot.

    As a user of both AMD and Intel, getting an AMD desktop was like a breathe of fresh air and was happy to finally get away from Intel.

    But that's just me.

      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  2. #12


    My Intel Q6600 has been rock-solid reliable with a stock CPU cooler, no overclocking, on an Intel board (DG43GT) for about 5 years now and it still runs Win7/8 great! I have a decent "non-gamer" video card (GT-430), which helps... Everyone's needs are different, so you have to match the hardware and software to your requirements.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  3. #13


    Posts : 15
    Windows 7-64


    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    Well, this depends on your overall use for the chip.

    If you do media converting or use other programs that can effectively use the cores of the CPU, I'd take the 6 core chip. If you do considerable gaming, you might want to stick with a quad core as most modern games prefer to use a quad core, I don't think there are any or a few games that use more than four processor cores.

    For Windows 8, if you have a SSD, you could probably argue for a 6 core processor. Again, this depends on your usage scenarios. If you aren't planning to do a system upgrade for a while and will most likely keep it for at least 3+ years, I'd go with the 6 core. By that time, theoretically, PC games will start taking advantage of more CPU cores than 4, so you'd be somewhat future proofed for that. But if you want good Windows 8 performance, consider graphics over processor. Pretty much all of Windows, the apps, the GUI, IE and other programs use the GPU for visual rendering. Every modern browser after IE 9 started to use the GPU and offload that from the CPU.
    I have an HIS 6870 1GB, I think for what I do, it's more then enough for me.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  4. #14


    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    Of which an FX processor out performs the i5 lineup and competes pretty well with an i7.
    Um, not from what I have heard. Perhaps in a few obscure tests, but most sites come to the same conclusion that this site came to: FX-8350 vs. Core i5-3470 CPU Review | Hardware Secrets. They compared an FX-8350 against a Core i5-3470. Both are $200 chips at NewEgg today. The conclusion to the above article which is page 18 (FX-8350 vs. Core i5-3470 CPU Review | Hardware Secrets)

    Paraphrasing since the website won't allow me to cut and paste directly:

    The 8350 only provides "slight" improvement over the 8150. While AMD leads in the $100 price arena, at the $200 mark they are way behind Intel. Although they cost the same, the i5-3470 provides 30% more performance than the FX8350 and the i5 is the FAR BETTER CHOICE and we simply cannot recommend the AMD8350 While the 8350 was faster in 3D rendering with Cinebench than the i5, we believe this type of user would invest in a better i7 anyway
    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    Granted, there are like 10 or so different i7s, one costing 2,000 dollars and the only thing that AMD has is the FX-8530. For the price, you can't really argue against that.
    It's irrelevant that Intel makes a $2k Core i7...because a chip of that caliber is nowhere near necessary to clobber the competition. That's more of a "collectors item" rather than a processor that a consumer would actually use.

    An Intel Core i7-3770k is $300...so only $100 more than an FX8350...yet it beats it in every game benchmark here with the exception of Batman where it was more or less equivalent. AMD FX-8350 vs Intel Core i7-3770K @ 4.8GHz - Multi-GPU Gaming Performance by VR-Zone.com

    Considering how much money a gamer will put into a new video card for more FPS, or people will sink into SSD's in a RAID for better OS performance, or how much extra they will invest for a high end mobo, or will consider doing a 15 hard drive system in hopes of getting outrageous performance and extra $100 for the Intel 3770K is a drop in the bucket.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    And yeah, I do want a 15 hard drive system. I'll be using an AMD FX processor for that, an 8 core chip. The preconception I have here is that Windows 8 will use those 8 cores to divide the tasks of Storage Spaces up, as it would probably do in Server 2012. Also, along with a few other threaded programs I use, AMD wins out over Intel in this situation.
    I think you need to prepare yourself for a significant amount of disappointment if you think an 8 core CPU is going to make Storage Spaces the epitome of high-end fast storage. Commodity consumer grade 7200RPM hard drives will be the bottleneck here. Your best bet is to get nice controller cards that you can offload the performance load to so that your CPU can do other things. Their are reasons that high performance RAID controller cards cost a lot of money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coke Robot View Post
    Then there is the overclocking potential that again, increases value and performance....
    Intels can overclock too. The thing with AMD is that it's always about the future, or the potential...but the fans always have to come up with excuses for the current levels of performance. That is since the Core 2 Duo came out and replaced the AMD Athlon 64 X2 from the top of the heap. That's the last time AMD was great and that's the last AMD chip I had.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  5. #15


    Quote Originally Posted by LovingWindows View Post
    Intel CPU are expensive, overpriced and they have a tendency to overheat quite quickly or get very, very hot.
    As I stated above, a $200 AMD 8350 looses in quite a number of benchmarks to a $200 Core i5 Intel. For gaming, the i5 is a hands down winner. Only in areas utilizing heavily threaded applications (which most people do NOT), does the 8350 eek out an advantage. So I fail to see where Intel CPU's are expensive or overpriced. Look at what people spend on RAM, SSD's, video cards, overpowered PSU's, cases, water cooling, etc. An extra $50 or $100 on a CPU that provides better performance just seems like a no-brainer...unless you are just going for budget builds entirely.

    I've never had a problem with heat on an Intel CPU. I'm overclocking a Q9550 from 2.83Ghz to 3.4Ghz on the stock Intel Cooler and have been for 3.5 years and no issues at all. I overclock an E6400 at work from 3.0Ghz to 3.6Ghz on the stock Intel Cooler and have for 3 years with no issues. And I've overclocked my Core i7-3770 on the Asus P8Z77 mobo at work for the past 6 months on the stock intel cooler and no issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by LovingWindows View Post
    As a user of both AMD and Intel, getting an AMD desktop was like a breathe of fresh air and was happy to finally get away from Intel.

    But that's just me.
    I'm about 50/50 between AMD and Intel builds over the past 15 years. But my last AMD was an Athlon 64 X2 4600+ becuase that dominated the Intel Pentium 4 back in the day. However, since the release of the Intel Core 2 Duo...it's been all Intel for me.

    I really wish AMD would seriously get back in the game and for a while I held out high hopes for Bulldozer and Piledriver...but as usual with AMD...they let me down and tons of other people.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  6. #16


    Posts : 1,127
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    I love my system with the AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition which is super easy to overclock. It's a beast, especially at the budget price it was.

    But yeah, AMD right now is just bang for your buck in the budget range or for the HTPC where you don't need a lot of CPU but you need a lot of GPU. Its processors and motherboards are cheaper. If you can afford the $200+ processors (as well as the expensive motherboards), Intel is the way to go.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  7. #17


    Posts : 15
    Windows 7-64


    Maybe I should hold off buy any CPU until the next price drop?
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  8. #18


    Posts : 5,707
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    I would suggest that.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  9. #19


    The only problem with waiting for price drops is that you will always be waiting as there will always be something new and prices of current gen stuff will always be dropping.

    Eventually you have to bite the bullet, upgrade, and then actually use and take advantage of what you have and not dwell on what the price is NOW doing or what the new chips can do.
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

  10. #20


    Posts : 5,707
    Windows 8.1 Pro


    Quote Originally Posted by pparks1 View Post
    The only problem with waiting for price drops is that you will always be waiting as there will always be something new and prices of current gen stuff will always be dropping.

    Eventually you have to bite the bullet, upgrade, and then actually use and take advantage of what you have and not dwell on what the price is NOW doing or what the new chips can do.
    That will ultimately depend upon if the OP's motherboard can handle the latest AMD CPU. It seems the highest it can hold is an FX 8100 series, when the current series is the 8300s. Most likely there will be price drops on the current hardware, such as the FX 4170 that was mentioned, to clear out stock. Or if there is a Newegg sale of course...
      My System SpecsSystem Spec

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Win 8 - four core vs. 6 core processors
Related Threads
CPU-Z Reports Core i3 as Core i5 in Drivers & Hardware
For what-ever reason, the system information window reports that I have a Core i3 processor, but CPU-Z reports the Core i3 as a Core i5 processor. I want to know why CPU-Z is reporting the processor incorrectly. See the screenshot below: 56798 Thanks for the help!
Hi, I have two laptops made by the same manufacturer and same year, but one is a dual core laptop with an SSD harddrive and the other is a quad core laptop with a regular hard drive. Both laptops run Windows 8. I would like to transfer my programs and files from the dual core to the quad core....
sorry , didn't see https://www.eightforums.com/virtualization/46142-virtualization-computer-learning.html I will look at this first
Hi guys. I've been looking at 2 laptops, they are basically identical but one has an Intel Core i3-4005U mobile processor and 4GB of RAM, and the other one has an AMD A4-5000 mobile processor and 6GB RAM. The guy at the store and a couple other people I know told me that the Core i3 is better than...
Intel® 3rd Generation Core Processors and Windows 8: Better Together This is what I had in mind as I've seen the release of 3rd Gen Core and few months or a year from now they will release Windows 8. Now brand companies need to work on touch screen monitors/laptops to tie up the functions...
I have installed windows 8 x64 consumer preview. Under the task manager performance, Im only seeing one cpu graph, and it reports one physical processor and two `logical` processors. Also under device manager, when I get the properties for `Computer` it says acpi x64 based pc, I think older...
Title says it all. Before I installed Hyper-V, Windows shows all 8 threads. . . After, only 1, and VMs were definately sluggish. Has anyone else had this issue or know how to fix it? This Windows 8 pre-release would otherwise be perfect for me as it's the only way I can have Hyper-V AND my internal...
Eight Forums Android App Eight Forums IOS App Follow us on Facebook