Which one of these cores?

I dunno, everyone's telling me that the future is in more cores. I still hold 4c/8t as the thumbs-up standard. Some would tell me that those thumbs are up my butt for such a low standard.

File: fry.jpg (17KB, 514x385px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 514x385px

How can the 8 core be both just as fast as the 4 core and faster at the same time?

>>61992341
Well I forgot to say, they are

4c/4t
and
8c/8t (the same as above, but x2)

and both have the same cpu benchmark

>>61992382
A matter of GHz, my friend.

I just want to know if there would be a difference in multitasking programs that need to burst cpu all at once, and programs like chrome which run the same instance a thousand times (check taskmgr)

>>61992382
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2300+%40+2.80GHz

and this one is x2 so multiply twice the average cpu mark and you will get (almost) the same result as the one above. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5504+%40+2.00GHz

But my question is, imagine both setups give the same CPU SPEED. all difference would be the amount of cores each cpu have...

it would make a difference when running multiple tasks? (even though both have same cpu speed, but different amount of cores)

>>61992361
4c/8t isn't bad either but I think the Ryzen 1600 is cheap enough you should consider it. If you do a lot of random stuff at the same time the extra cores/threads will come in handy.

>>61992341
If both perform the same the 4 core is the obvious choice. Applications written to only take use of one core could run twice as fast on the 4 core. The 8 cores performance would rely on an application using all 8 cores effectively to achieve the same performance as an application that only needs to be optimised for 4 cores on the 4 core processor.

>>61992501
If you're saying a dual socket sandy bridge setup will be comparable (in performance, price, costs and expandability) to an 8 core Xeon you'll be disappointed to hear there's a lot more research you need to do
theres a shitload of incompatibilities with dual socket systems (and saying "multiply the cpubenchmark.com score by 2" for average programs, is actually flat out retarded). So a dual socket system is basically gimping your entire performance for the off chance that a program or two can effectively use two CPUs (one 2300 is faster in single-threaded programs than that Xeon though)
On the other hand, older xeons are notoriously low clocked, have little room to OC, and aren't that great unless you're using all of those cores in some perfect application harmony (no, 8 tabs in chrome doesn't count as an octacore-optimized program). They're made to be slow reliable chugger CPUs, not for squeezing the most performance out
So
>rendering
Xeon because a dual socket system probably won't work with inventor or lightroom or whatever the fuck you're using
>mining
The cheaper one, obviously
You're trying to turn a profit here, $50 extra could ruin your whole operation senpai