Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Guys, can anyone please redpill me, how much does hyperthreading "compensate" for the fact that those additional cores aren't real?
I just did test encode with Handbrake (default preset, PC configs fairly the same aside from CPU), and this what I've got:
i3-3240 (3,4 Ghz, 2 cores, 4 threads) encoded in 07:59
a6-3650 (2,6 Ghz, 4 cores, 4 threads) encoded in 12:07
So, how can i3 with, albeit higher frequency, but "false" 4 cores so easily beat a6, which has 4 real cores?
>>
File: e07d6497ed7d8ded06b710fd0a24543a.jpg (61KB, 478x720px) Image search:
[Google]
61KB, 478x720px
I am also interested therefore dump.
>>
>>59202316
Because AMD's cores aren't always full cores. Just google "AMD not real cores" and you will find articles about how they have basically been cheating on the core count for the last few gens.
>>59202502
An OP can't bump a thread for 30 min just so you know.
>>
>>59202551
Thanks for answer.
>>
>>59202551
But they are real cores. They can run 8 instructions concurrently.
>>
>>59202953
They have to share a FPU unit, which screws over complex maths calculations, meaning they aren't a complete core and so don't perform as a well as a true multi core chip.
Thread posts: 6
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2