Is 1 core cpu + higher clock better?

[sack_patrol]

Would the performance gain of a single core CPU with...lets say 5.0Ghz be better than a dual with 3.8-4.0Ghz? I want to try that but I'm not sure if it's not gonna mess up my cpu if I make it a single core lol.

[airman]

On single threaded apps? It depends on the processors in comparison. If someone managed to get say, get an earlier generation Intel or AMD processor (like Pentium D or comparable AMD processor) to those higher clock speeds versus a dual core E8400 or something (at the lower speed), the E8400 would outperform the earlier generation CPUs by far. This is because of the architecture (smaller process, more cache).

[Crazy_Nate]

If you are thinking about disabling one core and overclocking higher...who knows. Maybe you'll get another 100MHz?

 

But, in any SMP threaded application or when considering multitasking, having two cores will be superior.

 

Try it. Benchmark. Post screenshots. This will be a learning experience.

[sack_patrol]

Lets say I take my 550 BE. If it could get to 5.0ghz with 1 core, would it be better than it...with 2 cores and 3.9Ghz? Thats what I mena...I'm not comparing to other processors...just to itself.

 

I heard that the same concept of reducing cores for more Ghz was used alot on i5's.

 

 

EDIT: Interesting.... When I make my cpu single cored I can get to 4.0ghz...though I need alot of volts and had to rais nb a bit. This probably won't even be stable...I also find it hard to believe that any cpu could be better with higher clocks and a single core than a little bit lower and 2 or 3 or 4 cores. Unless It's like 6.0Ghz or something...

 

I'll see how far I can push this...(probably won't go above 4.0ghz lol...you might say that what I did now is like...the final final final resort...for 4.0ghz...and it's uselss lol. Good experience though.)

Edited December 3, 2009 by ballist1x

[Baulten]

On Nehalem derivative based products you can disable hyperthreading to reach higher clocks, but hyperthreading is not the same as disabling cores. Hyperthreading allows 2 threads to be ran per core, so each takes a slight performance hit, but together they provide better performance. However, since most programs don't scale past 4 cores, some people disable HT and run 4 threads across 4 cores at higher frequencies.

[sack_patrol]

I find this whole concept kinda useless. It really doesn't lead to a big increase in anything... I couln't get my cpu past 4.0ghz with 1 core so...thats it...not gonna waste more time with this lol. I guess if the clocks were wayyyyyy higher..it might be better for something...but not for home use...and also there is no wayyyy in hell I'd waste money for ln2 or phase change just to get some extra mhz and 1 core...doesn't do me much good. 2 cores and 3.9Ghz (which is my max) is much cheaper and practical.

Edited December 3, 2009 by ballist1x

[Waco]

Most games now are multithreaded enough that they'd crawl with a single core.

[Andrewr05]

This entirely depends on the application and the processor architecture...

[Crazy_Nate]

Do I win something for my guess of 100MHz?

[sack_patrol]

ROFL! 1/2 internets.

[XxHellxRaizerxX]

while we are all talking about this, will disabling cores on a PII 940 for example, cause any damage to the chip? and also, when you disable them does it just turn them off so that they consume no power?

[Zertz]

No it won't damage it and even if they're turned off they probably still leak a bit and consume very little, but still some power

 

OP: The problem is that you can only clock a processor so high before you run into a power wall... think Pentium 4. Also, even if you run single threaded code, chances are you do more than one thing at a time

Edited December 4, 2009 by Zertz