Part 2: How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
-
Page 1:Time To Follow-Up
-
Page 2:Test Methodology: How Do You Make It A Fairer Fight?
-
Page 3:Test System And Benchmarks
-
Page 4:Synthetic Benchmarks: 3DMark And PCMark Vantage
-
Page 5:Synthetic Benchmarks: SiSoftware Sandra
-
Page 6:Application Benchmarks: Audio Encoding
-
Page 7:Application Benchmarks: Video Encoding And Image Rendering
-
Page 8:Application Benchmarks: General Usage
-
Page 9:Game Benchmarks
-
Page 10:Multitasking Benchmarks
-
Page 11:Simulated Dual-Core Versus Actual Dual-Core Comparison
-
Page 12:Performance Analysis
-
Page 13:Conclusion
Performance Analysis
Let's begin by looking at the big picture. Here is a graph showing the average relative performance when using the Phenom II with one, two, three, and four CPU cores enabled:
The blue bar represents game performance, the green bar represents application performance, and the dark bar represents synthetic performance.
First off, let's look at the gaming results. We get the impression that, compared to a single-core CPU, there is a huge benefit to using at least a dual-core CPU when gaming. After that, increasing the number of CPU cores provides a small increase in performance, with triple-core CPUs providing the same performance as a quad-core processor.
When we scrutinize application performance, we see a more linear progression, suggesting that multithreaded apps are better-suited to take advantage of multiple CPU cores. Do keep in mind that certain applications showed no increase in performance, as they aren't threaded. So, the programs you run will directly influence the actual performance increase.
The synthetic results appear as slightly exaggerated application results, which bodes well for the argument that synthetic benchmarks are a useful tool in looking forward--here, measuring multithreaded performance.
It is interesting to note that once four CPU cores are used, both application and game performance run about twice as fast as they do on a single-core CPU.
Now that we've examined this, let's look at the average performance graph from the previous article, where we used the Core 2 Quad Q6600 as our test case:
In general, the results paint a similar picture, even though some of the details are a little different. The most notable change from the Phenom II results is the synthetic results, which seem far too optimistic in the Core 2 Quad tests. Application performance is similar on the whole, showing comparable increases with each CPU core that is utilized. Even the game results are fairly close. Therefore, we can say with some certainty that the split cache on the Core 2 Quad Q6600 didn't affect the results enough to invalidate them in the previous review.
The other notable tidbit we learned wasn't too much of a surprise: as the concurrent application benchmark demonstrated, even though triple- and quad-core CPUs might show nearly-identical results in a given benchmark, these results can drastically change when more than one application is run at the same time. If you have a quad-core CPU, you're more likely to be able to run an application in the background without as much of a performance penalty. Conversely, folks with fewer CPU cores at their disposal may want to pay attention to the apps running in the background and terminate them if they're participating in a CPU-intensive task, like a game.
- Time To Follow-Up
- Test Methodology: How Do You Make It A Fairer Fight?
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Synthetic Benchmarks: 3DMark And PCMark Vantage
- Synthetic Benchmarks: SiSoftware Sandra
- Application Benchmarks: Audio Encoding
- Application Benchmarks: Video Encoding And Image Rendering
- Application Benchmarks: General Usage
- Game Benchmarks
- Multitasking Benchmarks
- Simulated Dual-Core Versus Actual Dual-Core Comparison
- Performance Analysis
- Conclusion
Nice article..
it clearly shows an improvement from dual to triple or even quads, and if most people are like myself when it comes to computing and gaming, pulling the best out of the system from the budget available, then the triple and quad core cpu's sure look better than the dual cores.
also down to price and overclocking ability, then the quads from intel can reach virtually the same speeds as the duals and with only a small price difference, making a better price to performance gain overall.
i'm a bit behind the curve and even i'm playing at 1680x1050?
cheers,
bill
p.s. stuff and nonsense: eupeople.net/forum
They should do gaming benchmarks at high deatails so i know how much of a difference a quad cpu will really make on the games.
I expected far better performance from dual / quad cores than a single core - basically like running multiple processors.
So I was expecting twice the performance with dual cores, and 4-times the performance with 4 cores.
I guess this might be expected where the processors were using dedicated caches?
Perhaps it also reveals that Windows isn't correctly taking advantage of the power of 2-4 cores - i.e. the kernel isn't too intelligently dividing multi-threaded / multi-apps capability to multiple cores.
Would be interesting to see a benchmark with Supreme Commander since that's meant to be a well threaded game, and really needs CPU performance when a large number of units are in the game.
Another application which can really use multiple cores is software compilation (e.g. try compiling a kernel with the option: -j 4). But since the compiler itself is not (normally) threaded, but just run several times in parallel, clearly the performance increase is linear.
That's why the socket AM3-based Athlon II/Phenom II x2 seem so appealing, considering their cost. Not saying Core 2 is bad, either, just that I have some Socket AM2 stuff lying around and for a relatively cheap price these deliver killer blows for games, as well as provide a very good overclocking potential. Most of my clients have AMD's due to price restrictions but I have no complaints and at least I know that when I install these parts they're gonna run cool and fast.
We still need faster fingers and eyes to go with the faster computers.