Hello!. I want to ask you for advice.
So my problem. I can’t choose a processor in any way, but this is the most important component among or. After all, it is precisely by one processor that you can determine a modern and productive computer you have or an old one, suitable only for working in office applications.
When buying a computer, the first thing the seller always asks is: "What tasks do you need a computer for?"
Second: "How much do you expect?"
Third: "Which processor do you choose?"
Then, depending on the named purposes of using the computer and the indicated amount, as well as the selected processor, the seller will select the motherboard and all other components.
That's it with the choice of processor, I can not decide in any way? Why? I will answer you. Despite the large volume random access memory(8GB) and a good video card, on the previous computer I bought, all the games that were relevant at that time ran without problems, but the FPS was always low and video processing was Adobe program Premiere Pro took much longer than a friend of mine who has a similar computer, but only with a different manufacturer's processor.
In the end, I concluded that it was all because of the processor!
I am ready to allocate the necessary amount for the purchase of a processor, but I don’t want to overpay either. There is a great desire to choose exactly the processor that I need. I use my computer to the fullest, I can play, as well as digitize videos, burn discs, communicate on the Internet, and so on.
I hope on your site to learn not only how to choose a processor, but also how to choose a motherboard, RAM, video card, HDD, power supply, case and monitor!
In the meantime, your answers to the questions below would be of great help to me!
- Which processor manufacturer came before Intel or AMD?
- Why are Intel processors always more expensive, is it just because of the Intel brand? Could it be that Intel processors are exactly the same quality and performance as AMD and we are simply overpaying for the Intel name?
- When should you buy only an Intel processor? And when can you afford to save money and buy an AMD processor?
- If I eventually choose Intel, is it worth spending money on a branded 4 nuclear processor Intel Core i7, can it be limited to Intel Core i5 or a completely 2-core Intel Core 2 Duo processor?
- And if I choose an AMD processor, then which model should I pay attention to: the very expensive AMD FX-9590 or just the high-performance 8-core AMD FX-8350 processor?
- Why do I have computer games oh low FPS (the number of frames changed per unit of time), what does it depend on at all?
- What better AMD FX-8350 or Intel Core i7-3770K?
- What is the difference between processors with a "K" at the end and processors without this letter, such as the Intel Core i7-3770K and the Intel Core i7-3770?
- Which processor would you choose yourself and please indicate approximate prices for current processor models?
How to choose a processor
Hello friends, Alexey is with you again! There are many questions, but I can handle it, though the article will be long, but also interesting. After reading it, you will know everything about processors!
In fact, when assembling a computer, usually, first of all, the processor is selected and then everything else is under it.
Choosing a processor is one of the easiest tasks in determining the future configuration of a computer. Here, the decisive factor is often the amount that we are willing to spend on it, or high specifications if the processor is planned to be used for professional or highly specialized activities.
This article can be used as a guide to choosing a processor for a new computer, or to upgrade an old one.
general information
I do not want to go into history and talk about how processors have evolved, suffice it to say that processors are the highest modern achievement. They are produced in only a few factories in the world that have truly space technology. Therefore, the processor is one of the most reliable components of the system today.
It so happened historically that the entire market for central processing units (CPUs) for personal computers shared two large corporations well-known: Intel and AMD.
Who is the leader of Intel or AMD?
Bilateral Licensing
In 1968, three outstanding physicists Gordon Moore, Andrew Grove, Robert Noyce founded the world-famous INTegrated Electronics Corporation in the future, we all know it as INTEL.
It is INTEL that is a recognized pioneer in the field of technologies that are included today in the modern lines of all processors. This is often the subject of controversy among supporters of a particular company. They say that Intel is better, while AMD is cheaper with a sometimes insignificant gap in performance.
Perhaps not everyone knows, but Intel and AMD have had an official agreement on free bilateral licensing since 1976. This means that each of the companies can use any technology developed by a competitor without receiving any additional license. And this has always been used by AMD, which cannot be said about such a proud bird as Intel.
As a result, almost all technologies developed by Intel exist on AMD processors, otherwise they simply would not be able to support modern applications, whose developers focus primarily on the architecture Intel processors.
Note: Many users will find this strange. Why would it by Intel share development secrets with AMD. Friends, do not forget that both companies are located in the United States, and there is antitrust law there, in addition, both Intel and AMD are official suppliers of their products to the US Army.
What are the processors
Appearance
Externally CPU looks like a monolithic metal case covering a board with a so-called crystal (a piece of silicon with microscopic electronic elements) and big amount contact legs (or pads) on the other side.
Intel processor (has modern pads)
AMD processor (with classic legs)
Let's not get into the jungle of the processor microarchitecture, such as exclusive and inclusive cache, branch prediction block, data prefetch block, etc. I will tell you only about the most important characteristics of processors that distinguish them and are of the greatest importance to us.
What is the difference between Intel and AMD processors or how to choose a processor and not regret it later!
First of all, Intel and AMD processors differ in the length of the so-called computational pipeline, which determines the main differences in the directions of their use.
Note: Pipelining is a method of organizing calculations that is used in modern processors to improve their performance. http://en.wikipedia.org
Intel processors have historically been targeted at the industrial sector, which is often dominated by streaming operations, i.e. when the data comes in a large continuous stream. Classical examples of streaming information processing can be video encoding and archiving of large amounts of data. Therefore, Intel processors have a sufficiently long pipeline, which allows processing more information in one pass and, accordingly, doing it faster.
AMD processors have seriously declared themselves in the market When computer systems went to the masses and were initially positioned as multimedia (game) processors, which emphasizes the name of 3DNow!
AMD processors have a shorter processing pipeline compared to Intel processors, which results in these processors being slightly worse at processing streaming data, since less information is processed in one pass, but this does not prevent them from doing excellent work, for example, with computer games, in which the data cannot be predicted in advance, since it depends on the actions of the user and therefore is transmitted in small portions, which are quickly processed on a short AMD processor pipeline.
This leads to a simple conclusion.
If you plan to constantly deal with video processing or creating archives, and the processing time of information is critical for you, then there is only one way out - an Intel processor. If you are a simple home user or you need a computer for your office, then you can significantly save your budget by purchasing an AMD processor, which will just as well cope with its tasks, but will cost $ 100 less ...
Many admirers AMD processors may notice:"Well, just like that, all AMD processors are only suitable for the office!"
Of course not friends! If we take the most current modern 4- and 8-core processors from AMD, for example, CPU AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz / 8 cores / 8 + 8Mb / 125W / 5200 MHz Socket AM3 (price 6,500 rubles), then you can do absolutely everything, play all modern games, process videos, and so on, but according to all kinds of tests, this processor will lose about 10-15% in performance to a similar 4-core processor from Intel, for example, this Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5 GHz (price 11,000 rubles).
I want to say that if you are a gamer, then Intel processors are what you need. In almost all modern games, computers with Intel processors will give out 30% more FPS (frames per second) compared to AMD counterparts. If you are engaged in video processing, then again you have to look towards Intel for the same reason.
I will even say the only advantage of AMD processors over Intel processors it's a lower cost. A modern AMD processor will cost less than an Intel processor by about $100. Agree, that kind of money is also not lying on the road.
AMD must be given credit for its fighting spirit, with such a serious opponent as Intel, the company never gives up! Realizing that it loses in technology, AMD is trying to win with pricing.
The most modern processor from AMD - FX-9590
It is not some special achievement, this processor is the same FX-8350 processor, but only overclocked by the manufacturer to a frequency of 4.7 GHz and in a 5.0 GHz turbo mode, which also has excessive power consumption and heat dissipation . Again, if the results all kinds of tests, then this processor has no advantage over the Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5 GHz and Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5 GHz, and the AMD FX-9590 (price 12,000 rubles) costs a little more than the Intel processors I named. In addition, I forgot to tell you that with modern games, the AMD FX-9590 processor is seriously heated, and this is not surprising with such an increase in supply voltage and frequency, and you will have to buy a serious cooling system, and this is still money.
How do you choose a processor? In my opinion, the most reasonable choice for a computer addict who can play games, digitize videos, archive various data, surf the Internet, and so on, on this moment processor Intel Core i7-3770 3.4 GHz. The absence of the letter "K" at the end indicates that this processor has a locked multiplier, that is, you cannot overclock it, but I want to say that even without overclocking, this processor works like an airplane, I don’t know where to overclock it, and you will save 1,000 rubles. Enough for him acceptable price 10,000 rubles. This processor is the "Editor's Choice" of many computer publications, and in general it has long established itself on the good side.
Want a processor from intel, but Core i7 is too expensive for you?
20% percent, that is, not many Intel Core i7-3770 processors are inferior in power to the younger brother Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4 GHz (price 8,000 rubles). It turns out that this is a direct competitor to the AMD FX-8350 4.0 GHz processor we have already reviewed (price is 6,500 rubles). The Intel Core i5-3570K processor is in no way inferior to it, but the price, as we can see, is again a little more expensive than that of the AMD processor.
If you are an enthusiast and a fan of overclocking the processor having squeezed exorbitant frequencies out of it, pay attention to the Intel Core i7-3770K 3.5 GHz and Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5 GHz processors (price 12,000 rubles) with an unlocked multiplier. For example, the Intel Core i7-4770K processor can be overclocked to 4.5 GHz.
What else good processors from Intel! They have an integrated graphics core, that is, an integrated video card. If you bought a computer with an Intel processor, then you may not buy an expensive video card for a while. Of course, you won’t play the latest games with it, but you can play games that are two or three years old, but for office tasks, such a video card will go with a large margin.
If you want to know the prices for modern processors, go to the end of the article, there is a price list for an average computer store. Having familiarized yourself with it, you will go to the computer store already prepared and will know the approximate alignment.
How else do processors differ from each other?
Friends, what we have just discussed with you is a bit superficial. After all, except for the manufacturer (Intel and AMD), processors differ from each other in the number of cores, frequency, cache, socket, the presence of a video core or its absence, energy consumption and heat generation, and much more. Let's look at this issue in more detail, I'm sure this secret knowledge will be useful to you.
Main characteristics of processors
All processors, regardless of manufacturer, differ in such basic indicators as the number of cores, core frequency, cache size, support for various RAM frequencies. So, first things first.
An increase in the number of processing cores most strongly affects the performance of the processor, and, accordingly, the price too. Modern computer must have at least a 2-core processor, and preferably a 4-core one. Options with 6, 8 or more cores can be considered as a long-term acquisition.
Also, the performance of the processor directly depends on the frequency of the core. Today, the normal frequency of a modern processor is considered to be from 3 to 4 GHz. The higher the core frequency, the higher the performance, but also the higher the power consumption, temperature, requirements for the motherboard, power supply, and the price itself.
Processor cache
Cache size also affects processor performance, but not to the same extent as multi-core or core frequency. Also, this impact will differ from application to application. In some program, the increase can be 15%, in some 5 ... But this just affects the price significantly, because cache memory, being incredibly fast (an order of magnitude faster than RAM), is also very expensive ...
There are 3 levels of processor cache.
L1 cache. The 1st cache level has the highest speed, but also the smallest size of 64 KB per core. It contains the basic instructions (algorithms) necessary for the operation of the processor and is usually not emphasized.
L2 cache. The 3rd cache level is slower than the 2nd, and is not available in all processors. Processors positioned as powerful multimedia processors have about 3-6 MB of shared L3 cache (for all cores). Top expensive processors can have 8 MB or more total L3 cache.
And finally, the memory controllers built into the processor determine how fast the RAM it can support (1333, 1600, 2000 MHz). In this regard, Intel processors often overtook the clumsy AMD. But the increase in real applications as with cache memory, it may not always be noticeable. The amount of RAM has always played a big role here. If there is enough RAM, the computer works fine, if not, it slows down. That's the whole science) Information about what memory the processor supports can be found on the manufacturer's website. It is also necessary that the motherboard supports the same frequency.
Additional processor specifications
Other, but also important differences between the processors are the process technology, power consumption, temperature regime work.
Such characteristics as power consumption and temperature mode of operation are very dependent on the technology of the manufacturing process of the processor. As it improved, processors became faster, cooler and more economical at the same time. This miracle of technological progress has no negative sides - the thinner the technical process, the better. What does this even mean? In the process of improving production technologies, it is possible to make microscopic transistors that make up the computing cores, capacitors that make up the cache and the conductors between them are smaller and smaller. As a result, many more of these elements can be placed on a piece of silicon of the same size, which allows for increased performance, at the same time, the conductors heat up less and consume less energy, since they also become thinner and their resistance has become lower. That's all physics friends)
To date, the most modern processors are manufactured using the 22 nm (nanomicron) process technology, which should be strived for.
Processor power consumption depends on the number of cores, their frequency and technological process. Here it must be borne in mind that a powerful processor cannot be put on the cheapest motherboard and powered by the same power supply. Since they were not originally designed for such a load and can quickly fail. Energy consumption modern processors fluctuates between 65-125 watts, indicated on their packaging and on the manufacturer's website. Similar data is indicated in the documentation and on the websites of motherboards. For information on how to choose the right power supply, read the previous article.
Temperature regime equates to the maximum power consumption of the processor and is characterized by such an indicator as the maximum temperature package "Thermal Design Power" or "TDP". For modern processors, it is also 65-125 watts. Here you need to take into account that for a processor with a TDP of 65 watts, the simplest and cheapest cooler is enough, with a TDP of 100 watts, a more powerful cooler is needed, preferably with 2-4 heat pipes, with a TDP of 125 watts - a cooler with 4 heat pipes or more. A cooler literally translated from English is a cooler, which is usually an aluminum, sometimes with a copper base, radiator with a fan attached to it to remove heat from the processor. The most progressive models have a design with so-called heat pipes, which, on the one hand, are in close contact with the processor, and on the other, with the fins of the heatsink blown by the fan. Usually, a processor comes with a cooler that is clearly designed for it, but there are processors on sale without a cooler, so it is advisable to have this information.
The photo shows a cooler with heat pipes.
Please note that when installing or replacing the processor, you will need thermal paste, which is applied in a thin layer to the processor before installing the cooler. It is necessary for better heat transfer, otherwise the processor will overheat. If the processor is new and comes with a cooler, then thermal paste will already be applied to it.
Processor sockets
The processor socket or as it is also called Socket (slot) is the junction of the processor and the motherboard. Processor sockets for each manufacturer and processor line are different and they are marked either by the number of pins in the socket or by the marking of the processor line.
Technological process at present time is running very quickly, processors change, processor sockets change. Well, what can I say ... If you collect new computer, do not use motherboards and processors with obsolete sockets, because if you have problems or want to improve these components in a year or two, it will be difficult for you to find a replacement for them.
Intel Pentium- the old line of 1- and 2-core processors, with average performance, suitable for an office computer
Intel Core 2 Duo - the old line of 2 and 4 core processors, with high performance, suitable for replacement on older computers
Modern Intel processors
Intel Core i3 - the youngest, most affordable line of 2-core Intel processors
Intel Core i5 - medium, fairly productive line of processors, has both 4-core and some 2-core models
Intel Core i7 - the older, high-performance line of 4 and 6 core processors
More detailed marking of these processors mainly depends on their frequency and cache size.
All processors of the Core series have an integrated video core, i.e. do not require additional installation video cards to the computer. This can be a beneficial solution if the PC will be used primarily for non-gaming purposes. But we must pay tribute to Intel engineers, who made it an order of magnitude more powerful than previous solutions that were integrated on motherboards. Such a built-in video core easily pulls such games of bygone years as Half Life 2 or Underground.
3. If the processor is not listed as compatible, you can still try by updating the BIOS first and agreeing with the seller to return it if it does not work. Or give the system manager to the seller, let him try to deliver it himself. The only requirement here is that the processor fits into the allowable thermal package (TDP) of the motherboard, otherwise it may not withstand (burn out).
I once observed how one of my clients had too much powerful processor on a weak motherboard, it burned through!
4. If the processor is gluttonous enough, you may need a more powerful and reliable power supply. Also, do not forget about a cooler and thermal paste sufficient for cooling.
I wish you a good choice and Have a good mood! And if something doesn't work the first time, don't forget that there are things in life more important than the processor e.g. video card)
Approximate prices for central Russia
The search module is not installed.
Single core or dual core?
Viktor Kuts
The most significant recent event in the field of microprocessors has been the widespread availability of CPUs equipped with two computing cores. The transition to a dual-core architecture is due to the fact that the traditional methods of increasing the performance of processors have completely exhausted themselves - the process of increasing their clock frequencies has recently stalled.
For example, in the last year before the advent of dual-core processors, Intel was able to increase the frequencies of its CPUs by 400 MHz, and AMD even less - by only 200 MHz. Other performance enhancements, such as increasing bus speed and cache size, have also lost their effectiveness. Thus, the introduction of dual-core processors, which have two processor cores in one chip and share the load, has now turned out to be the most logical step on the complex and thorny path of increasing the performance of modern computers.
What is a dual core processor? In principle, a dual-core processor is an SMP system (Symmetric MultiProcessing - symmetric multiprocessing; a term for a system with several equal processors) and is essentially no different from an ordinary two-processor system consisting of two independent processors. In this way, we get all the benefits of dual-processor systems without the need for complex and very expensive dual-processor motherboards.
Prior to this, Intel has already made an attempt to parallelize the instructions being executed - we are talking about HyperThreading technology, which provides the sharing of resources of one "physical" processor (cache, pipeline, execution units) between two "virtual" processors. The performance gain (in separate, HyperThreading-optimized applications) was about 10-20%. Whereas a full-fledged dual-core processor, which includes two "honest" physical cores, provides an increase in system performance by 80-90% and even more (naturally, with full use of the capabilities of both of its cores).
The main initiator in the promotion of dual-core processors was AMD, which in early 2005 released the first Opteron dual-core server processor. As for desktop processors, the initiative was seized by Intel, which at about the same time announced Intel Pentium D and Intel Extreme Edition processors. True, the announcement of a similar line of Athlon64 X2 processors manufactured by AMD was only a few days late.
Intel Dual Core Processors
The first dual-core Intel Pentium D processors of the 8xx family were based on the Smithfield core, which is nothing more than two Prescott cores combined on a single semiconductor chip. There is also an arbiter who monitors the state system bus and helps to share access to it between the cores, each of which has its own 1 MB L2 cache. The size of such a crystal, made according to the 90-nm process technology, reached 206 square meters. mm, and the number of transistors is approaching 230 million.
For advanced users and enthusiasts, Intel offers Pentium Extreme Edition processors, which differ from Pentium D in support of HyperThreading technology (and an unlocked multiplier), thanks to which they are defined operating system as four logical processors. All other functions and technologies of both processors are completely identical. Among them are support for the 64-bit EM64T (x86-64) instruction set, EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep), C1E (Enhanced Halt State) and TM2 (Thermal Monitor 2) energy saving technologies, as well as the NX-bit information protection function. Thus, the considerable price difference between the Pentium D and Pentium EE processors is largely artificial.
As for compatibility, Smithfield processors can potentially be installed in any LGA775 motherboard, as long as it meets Intel's power supply requirements.
But the first pancake, as usual, came out lumpy - in many applications (most of which are not optimized for multithreading), dual-core Pentium D processors not only did not outperform single-core Prescott running at the same clock frequency, but sometimes even lost to them. Obviously, the problem lies in the interaction of the cores via the Quad Pumped Bus processor bus (during the development of the Prescott core, it was not planned to scale its performance by increasing the number of cores).
To eliminate the shortcomings of the first generation of dual-core Intel processors, processors based on the 65-nm Presler core (two separate Cedar Mill cores placed on the same substrate), which appeared at the very beginning of this year, were called upon. More "thin" technical process allowed to reduce the area of the cores and their power consumption, as well as increase the clock speeds. Dual-core processors based on the Presler core were named Pentium D with indexes 9xx. If we compare the Pentium D processors of the 800th and 900th series, in addition to a noticeable reduction in power consumption, the new processors received a doubling of the second-level cache (2 MB per core instead of 1 MB) and support for the promising Vanderpool virtualization technology (Intel Virtualization Technology). In addition, it was released Pentium processor Extreme Edition 955 with HyperThreading enabled and running at 1066MHz FSB.
Officially, processors based on the Presler core with a bus frequency of 1066 MHz are only compatible with motherboards based on the i965 and i975X series chipsets, while 800 MHz Pentium Ds will work in most cases on all motherboards that support this bus. But, again, the question arises about the power supply of these processors: the thermal package of Pentium EE and Pentium D, with the exception of the younger model, is 130 W, which is almost a third more than that of Pentium 4. According to Intel's own statements, stable operation of a dual-core system is possible only when using power supplies with a capacity of at least 400 W.
The most efficient modern Intel dual-core desktop processors are without a doubt the Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 eXtreme (Conroe core). Their architecture develops the basic principles of the P6 family architecture, however, the number of fundamental innovations is so great that it is time to talk about the new, 8th generation of processor architecture (P8) from Intel. Despite the lower clock frequency, they significantly outperform the P7 family (NetBurst) processors in terms of performance in the vast majority of applications - primarily due to an increase in the number of operations performed in each clock cycle, as well as by reducing losses due to the large length of the P7 pipeline.
Desktop processors of the Core 2 Duo line are available in several versions:
- E4xxx series - FSB 800 MHz, 2 MB L2 cache common for both cores;
- E6xxx series - FSB 1066 MHz, cache size 2 or 4 MB;
- X6xxx series (eXtreme Edition) - FSB 1066 MHz, cache size 4 MB.
The letter code "E" denotes the power consumption range from 55 to 75 watts, "X" - above 75 watts. Core 2 eXtreme differs from Core 2 Duo only in increased clock speed.
All Conroe processors use the well established Quad Pumped Bus and LGA775 socket. Which, however, does not mean compatibility with old motherboards at all. In addition to support clock frequency 1067 MHz, motherboards for new processors must include the new voltage regulation module (VRM 11). These requirements are mainly met by updated versions of motherboards based on Intel 975 and 965 series chipsets, as well as NVIDIA nForce 5xx Intel Edition and ATI Xpress 3200 Intel Edition.
In the next two years, Intel processors of all classes (mobile, desktop and server) will be based on the Intel Core architecture, and the main development will go towards increasing the number of cores on a chip and improving their external interfaces. In particular, for the desktop PC market, this processor will be Kentsfield - the first quad-core Intel processor for the high-performance desktop PC segment.
AMD Dual Core Processors
The AMD Athlon 64 X2 line of dual-core processors uses two cores (Toledo and Manchester) inside a single die, manufactured using a 90-nm process technology using SOI technology. Each of the Athlon 64 X2 cores has its own set of execution units and a dedicated L2 cache, they have a common memory controller and HyperTransport bus controller. The differences between the cores are in the size of the L2 cache: Toledo has a L2 cache of 1 MB per core, while Manchester has half that size (512 KB each). All processors have 128 KB L1 cache, their maximum heat dissipation does not exceed 110 W. The core of Toledo consists of about 233.2 million transistors and has an area of about 199 square meters. mm. The core area of Manchester is noticeably smaller - 147 sq. mm., the number of transistors is 157 million.
Athlon64 X2 dual-core processors inherited from Athlon64 support for Cool`n`Quiet power-saving technology, a set of 64-bit extensions AMD64, SSE - SSE3, NX-bit information protection function.
Unlike dual-core Intel processors that work only with DDR2 memory, Athlon64 X2 can work with both DDR400 (Socket 939) memory, which provides a maximum bandwidth of 6.4 GB / s, and DDR2-800 (Socket AM2), peak throughput is 12.8 GB/s.
All fairly modern motherboards Athlon64 X2 processors work without any problems - unlike the Intel Pentium D, they do not impose any specific requirements on the design of the motherboard power module.
Until very recently, AMD Athlon64 X2 was considered the most productive among desktop processors, but with the release of Intel Core 2 Duo, the situation has changed radically - the latter have become the undisputed leaders, especially in gaming and multimedia applications. In addition, the new Intel processors have lower power consumption and much more efficient power management mechanisms.
This state of affairs did not suit AMD, and as a response, it announced the release in mid-2007 of a new 4-core processor with an improved microarchitecture, known as the K8L. All its cores will have separate L2 caches of 512 KB each and one shared L3 cache of 2 MB (in future versions of the processor, the L3 cache may be increased). More perspective AMD architecture K8L will be reviewed in one of the next issues of our magazine.
One core or two?
Even a cursory glance at the current state of the desktop processor market indicates that the era of single-core processors is gradually becoming a thing of the past - both of the world's leading manufacturers have switched to producing mainly multi-core processors. However, the software, as it happened more than once before, still lags behind the level of hardware development. Indeed, in order to fully utilize the capabilities of several processor cores, the software must be able to "break" into several parallel threads processed simultaneously. Only with this approach does it become possible to distribute the load across all available computing cores, reducing the computation time more than could be done by increasing the clock frequency. Whereas the vast majority of modern programs are not able to use all the features provided by dual-core or, moreover, multi-core processors.
What types of user applications can be most effectively parallelized, that is, without much reworking of the program code, they allow you to select several tasks (program threads) that can be executed in parallel and, thus, load several processor cores at once? After all, only such applications provide any noticeable increase in performance from the introduction of multi-core processors.
The greatest gains from multiprocessing are received by applications that initially allow natural parallelization of calculations with data sharing, for example, packages of realistic computer rendering - 3DMax and the like. You can also expect a good performance boost from multiprocessing in applications for encoding multimedia files (audio and video) from one format to another. In addition, the tasks of editing two-dimensional images lend themselves well to parallelization in graphic editors like the popular Photoshop "a.
It is not for nothing that applications of all the above categories are widely used in tests when they want to show the advantages of Hyper-Threading virtual multiprocessing. And there is nothing to say about real multiprocessing.
But in modern 3D gaming applications, one should not expect any serious increase in speed from several processors. Why? Because a typical computer game is not so easy to parallelize into two or more processes. Therefore, the second logical processor, at best, will be engaged in the execution of only auxiliary tasks, which will give almost no performance gain. And developing a multi-threaded version of a game from the very beginning is quite complex and requires a lot of work - sometimes much more than for creating a single-threaded version. These labor costs, by the way, may still not pay off from an economic point of view. After all, manufacturers of computer games traditionally focus on the most massive part of users and begin to use new features of computer hardware only if it is widely used. This is clearly seen in the use of video card capabilities by game developers. For example, after the appearance of new video chips supporting shader technologies, game developers ignored them for a long time, focusing on the capabilities of truncated mass solutions. So even advanced players who bought the most sophisticated video cards of those years did not wait for normal games that use all their capabilities. Approximately similar situation with dual-core processors is observed today. Today, there are not many games that really use even HyperThreading technology, despite the fact that mass processors with its support have been produced for many years now.
In office applications, the situation is not so unambiguous. First of all, programs of this class rarely work alone - the situation is much more common when several office applications running in parallel are running on the computer. For example, the user works with text editor, and at the same time the website is loaded in the browser, as well as in background scanned for viruses. Obviously, multiple running applications allow you to easily use multiple processors and get a performance boost. Moreover, everything Windows versions XP, including Home Edition (which was initially denied support for multi-core processors), is already able to take advantage of dual-core processors by distributing program threads between them. This ensures high efficiency in the execution of numerous background programs.
Thus, one can expect some effect even from non-optimized office applications if they are run in parallel, but it is difficult to understand whether such a performance increase is worth a significant increase in the cost of a dual-core processor. In addition, a certain disadvantage of dual-core processors (especially with Intel Pentium D processors) is that applications whose performance is limited not by the processing power of the processor itself, but by the speed of memory access, may not benefit as much from having multiple cores.
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, the future is definitely with multi-core processors, but today, when most of the existing software is not optimized for new processors, their advantages are not as obvious as manufacturers try to show in their promotional materials. Yes, a little later, when there will be a sharp increase in the number of applications that support multi-core processors(first of all, this concerns 3D games, in which new-generation CPUs will help significantly relieve the graphics system), it would be advisable to purchase them, but now ... It has long been known that buying processors "for growth" is far from the most effective investment.
On the other hand, progress is rapid, and for a normal person, the annual change of computer is perhaps too much. Thus, all owners have enough modern systems on the basis of single-core processors in the near future you should not worry too much - your systems will still be "on the level" for some time, while for those who are going to buy a new computer, we would still recommend paying attention to relatively inexpensive junior models of dual-core processors.
|
Our regular readers may remember a series of articles that was published in 2009 under the general title "The influence of various characteristics on the performance of processors of modern architectures". In it, we considered a number of spherical processors in a vacuum in order to get a general impression of the speed of real processors and the factors that affect it based on the analysis of their performance. In the new year, after the release of the next version of the methodology, we decided to creatively rework the previously tested method with a bias towards greater realism of the issues under study, that is, simulating situations as real as possible. Like last time, we decided to start with AMD products, namely, with its newest platform: Socket AM3. Fortunately, the manufacturer promises this platform a fairly long life, its popularity among the user environment is great, and the company has chosen a better name for itself than a competitor - in terms of alphabetical sorting. :)
At first glance, the current AMD line seems somewhat chaotic (we would say that for all subsequent ones too ...), but the manufacturer's logic can be understood: of course, it is much more pleasant to sell a defective processor than to throw it away. And since this company releases quite a lot of modifications with different volumes and types of caches and the number of cores, accordingly, there is a great temptation to come up with some name, core or part of the cache for an instance with a “defective” core or cache, and disable the processor - to sell. :) Thanks to this wonderful, innovative policy of AMD, in the line of AM3 processors it produces, there are as many as three varieties of dual-core ones - with different L2 cache sizes, and even with the presence of L3; two modifications of three-core - with L3 and without it; and again three modifications of quad-core ones - with and without L3, as well as with different volumes of L3. In addition, a single-core Sempron is also being released for the AM3 platform. Having summarized the main technical characteristics of the CPU for the AM3 platform in one small table, we finally have a chance to understand that a certain kind of logic in model range AMD is:
| Sempron | Athlon II X2 | Phenom II X2 | Athlon II X3 | Phenom II X3 | Athlon II X4 | Phenom II X4 | Phenom II X6 | |
| nuclei | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| L2 cache, KB | 1024 | 2×512/1024 | 2×512 | 3×512 | 3×512 | 4×512 | 4×512 | 6×512 |
| L3 cache, KB | − | − | 6144 | − | 6144 | − | 4096/6144 | 6144 |
So, we are seeing a fairly logical “journey” from 1 core to 6, accompanied by variations on the topic of the L2 cache volume, as well as the presence or absence of L3 and its volume. At the same time, AMD L2 is “played” on relatively weak processors (dual-core), and then the introduction of L3 is used as a universal “accelerator of everything”. We can also note two equally strange-looking processors: Phenom II X2, which, with only 2 cores, has a giant L3 cache, and, conversely, Athlon II X4, which, with 4 cores, is completely devoid of it. In theory, the first should be an ideal option for old software without multi-threaded optimization (although then it doesn’t really need a second core ...), and the second is a processor for optimists who hope that a 4-core CPU will defeat all processors with a smaller the number of cores, regardless of the sailboat cache size. So it will be or not so - let's look at the results ...
Accordingly, the most interesting comparisons emerge from the point of view of performance analysis:
- Increasing the number of cores with the same cache size:
- from 1 core to 2;
- from 2 cores to 3;
- from 3 cores to 4;
- from 4 cores to 6.
- Increasing the amount of cache with the same number of cores:
- on 2-core processors (different sizes of L2, addition of L3);
- on 3-core processors (adding L3);
- on 4-core processors (adding L3, different L3 sizes).
- Variations on the theme "fewer cores, but more cache*":
- 1-core processor versus 2-core;
- 2-core processor versus 3-core.
* - implied: per single core.
As you can see, the soil for research is an unplowed field. True, in order for us to focus on the influence of the above factors, removing all the interfering ones, we still needed to make one curtsey towards “syntheticity” - regardless of whether such a CPU model exists in reality, all test participants worked at one core frequency: 2.6 GHz. However, everything is not so bad: Athlon II X3/X4, Phenom II X3/X4 with such a frequency really exist, there are only 2600 MHz Sempron, Athlon/Phenom II X2 and Phenom II X6.
Testing
As mentioned above, testing was carried out in accordance with the latest methodology of 2010, with some minor modifications:
- Since the task before us was rather large-scale and interesting, and all the test participants behaved very decently, and practically did not demonstrate oddities inexplicable from the point of view of logic, we made a voluntaristic decision to declare all optional tests permanent - thus, they are present in the main section, and participate on a general basis in the average score.
- Since a certain number of processors considered are, so to speak, "virtual" and are not actually produced, for this cycle, for ease of comparison, we chose our own reference (100-point) processor from among those who took part in this particular series of tests: AMD Phenom II X4 810.
Also, the first topic that we decided to explore may seem unexpected to some: it is obvious that in the list of questions it is by no means in the first place, no matter how you look at it. Here you just have to forgive us for some randomness in the series release sequence: it is caused by a simple “working moment” - the series will be released in the sequence in which the results considered in them become available. Unfortunately, the vastness of our testing methodology causes one of its inevitable drawbacks: tests take a very long time. Accordingly, if we decided to sacrifice efficiency for the sake of beauty, the first series (logically, we should have started with comparisons involving Sempron), you would have to wait another month, while this one is ready now. We decided, on the contrary, to sacrifice beauty for the sake of efficiency, and we hope you will understand us. In addition, the format of the current testing: “one article - one answer to a specific question,” is quite conducive to such an approach: after all, there are no “important” and “unimportant” questions, each of them is interesting in its own way, and everyone will surely find their reader .
So let's get started. In this series, we will look at, as promised, one simple and specific question: Does a 3-core processor with 512 kilobytes of L2 cache per core have an advantage over a dual-core processor with 2 times more L2 cache per core - 1024 kilobytes? In the pros of the first - an additional core. On the other hand, each core of the second can work with twice the amount of cached data. The situation, by the way, is not at all as obvious as it might seem at first glance ...
3D visualization
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 79 | 92 | ||
| 94 | 91 | ||
| 94 | 90 | ||
| 98 | 95 | ||
| 95 | 90 | ||
| 98 | 94 | −4% |
|
| Group Score | 92 | 91 |
Yes, yes, to the question of the non-obviousness of the situation. Surprisingly, when rendering a three-dimensional image, only one package out of six was able to get some benefit from the additional core, but the other 5 reacted very critically to the reduction in L2 volume. Of course, it is clear what this is connected with: most likely, they simply could not use the third core, and it was idle. Well - we praise the developers of 3ds max for good optimization, but at the same time we state: they are still in a clear minority.
Rendering 3D scenes
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 63 | 83 | ||
| 51 | 74 | ||
| 48 | 71 | ||
| Group Score | 54 | 76 |
In this group, the performance gain from adding another core is close to ideal, but regarding rendering, this fact is not surprising: 512 kilobytes of L2 cache is enough for the cores, because. the scene is divided into fairly small pieces that are calculated in parallel.
Scientific and engineering calculations
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 89 | 95 | ||
| 96 | 93 | ||
| 94 | 91 | ||
| 92 | 87 | ||
| 98 | 94 | ||
| 65 | 73 | ||
| 74 | 84 | ||
| Group Score | 87 | 88 |
The situation is more complicated: engineering CADs, apparently, operate with fairly large amounts of information when calculating, but they don’t know how to use the third core (in fairness: they often ignore the second one ...). Well multi-threaded optimized Maya, Mathematica (remember that since 2010 we have been using a multi-threaded optimized version of the MMA test for this package) and MATLAB have “fired”, due to which the overall score for the group has brought the 3-core CPU to the lead.
Raster graphics
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 101 | 97 | ||
| 96 | 97 | ||
Corel PhotoImpact | 99 | 98 | |
| 73 | 86 | ||
| Group Score | 92 | 95 |
The difference of ±1 percent is well within the measurement error, so we only need to highlight the cache-loving ACDSee and the well-threaded optimized Photoshop. And again, due to a more tangible advantage in a well-optimized application, the 3-core is in the lead in the overall score for the group.
Data compression
Our compilation test (at least that's how it should be in theory...) now supports up to 16 threads, so the gain of a processor with more cores is not surprising.
Java
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| Group Score | 55 | 74 |
|---|
...Well, we know the excellent parallelizability of the SPECjvm test well from the 2009 methodology.
Browsers
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 90 | 94 | ||
| 93 | 97 | ||
| 97 | 97 | ||
| Group Score | 93 | 96 |
A completely new, unexplored group of tests, for which there are no statistics yet, but a rather banal result: two benchmarks gave a slight advantage to the third core, and the third did not notice any difference at all.
Audio encoding
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 50 | 67 | ||
| 50 | 66 | ||
Monkey's Audio | 50 | 67 | |
| 50 | 67 | ||
| 51 | 67 | ||
| 50 | 67 | ||
| Group Score | 50 | 67 |
Audio encoding speed tests since 2009 have received excellent multi-threaded optimization due to the use of the dbPoweramp package, which can run as many encoding processes as it detects in the processor system. In this situation, the victory of the 3-core was a foregone conclusion.
Video encoding
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 77 | 93 | ||
Main concept (VC-1) | 64 | 81 | |
| 49 | 72 | ||
| 55 | 76 | ||
| 50 | 65 | ||
| 72 | 85 | ||
| Group Score | 61 | 79 |
Video encoding packages also show some very decent multi-processor optimization, including the previously unused Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas. Moreover, note: in the two above-mentioned packages, it is one of the best in the group.
Video playback
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 50 | 70 | ||
| 104 | 49 | ||
| 53 | 75 | ||
| 48 | 72 | ||
| Group Score | 64 | 67 |
A new group of tests presented one of the few surprises, reacting sharply negatively to the 3-core. Looking ahead, we note: it seems that we are talking about a reaction to 3 cores, and not to a decrease in the volume of L2, because 4-core does not show such a large drop in performance. Perhaps there is a phenomenon of categorical "indigestion" by specific software of the number of cores that is different from the power of two, we have already encountered this before.
Virtual machine
The vast majority of games used the third core quite successfully, only Borderlands, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis and World in Conflict are not particularly optimistic (less than 10% increase). It's not that the trend is so clear (UT3, for example, contradicts it), but you can see that 3 of the four games listed are not very new.
Total score
| 2 cores + 2×1024 L2 | 3 cores + 3×512 L2 | %% | |
| 71 | 80 |
The overall score is quite in the spirit of the times: even with the trimmed cache, multi-core is still in favor. However, not without juicy details: 16 tests out of 57 preferred a processor with a smaller number of cores, but a large amount of L2 per core. There is a temptation to declare this fact the intrigues of retrogrades and the laziness of programmers who are not well able to use the resources of modern processors ... and, probably, it is so. Still, for normal multi-core support, you need to do certain work(sometimes rather big), and a large L2 sometimes causes a performance increase "by itself", without additional efforts of the programmer. In this case, you should end on an optimistic note: judging by the overall score, there are fewer and fewer sloths among software developers. As for practical recommendations, they are obvious: in general, in the case of Athlon II, 3 cores are definitely better than 2.