Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 21

Thread: If you had the choice...

  1. #1
    blueball
    Guest

    If you had the choice...

    ...would you take 4 cores @ 4.2GHz with HT or 6 cores @ 4GHz with HT. Usage is mix of Photoshop and gaming.

    4.2GHz is i7-7700K on Gigabyte Z270
    4.0GHz is i7-8086K on an Asus Z370A

  2. #2
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Personally, I'd go with the 6 cores. I cannot see 200mhz having any meaningful impact on either gaming or photoshop.

    However, an extra 2 cores/4 threads would make a big difference...provided the game makes use of all cores/threads available, of course

  3. Received thanks from:


  4. #3
    Spreadie
    Guest

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Depends on the price.

    The 8086K is clearly the better choice but I wouldn't pay a premium for it. It may work out better to buy new AMD.

  5. Received thanks from:


  6. #4
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,457
    Thanks
    613
    Thanked
    1,645 times in 1,307 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: If you had the choice...

    I agree. In all honesty, I doubt you'll find yourself maxing all six cores, but given how long we've had quads for now I think plenty of games will be at least designed for quad core, and then having other software in the background able to use the remaining two is useful.

    Overall you're getting more power with six as well, so it will give you far more in terms of futureproofing than an extra 200MHz.

    I went AMD Ryzen so I'm running eight core. Have never seen my system use all of them but the price difference wasn't worth worrying about.

  7. Received thanks from:


  8. #5
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,975
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked
    1,584 times in 1,339 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    I went AMD Ryzen so I'm running eight core. Have never seen my system use all of them but the price difference wasn't worth worrying about.
    I max out all 8 on a regular basis, which is sooo nice

  9. Received thanks from:


  10. #6
    Senior Member Xlucine's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,160
    Thanks
    297
    Thanked
    188 times in 147 posts
    • Xlucine's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus TUF B450M-plus
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB @ 3.2 Gt/s
      • Storage:
      • Crucial P5 1TB (boot), Crucial MX500 1TB, Crucial MX100 512GB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 980ti
      • PSU:
      • Fractal Design ION+ 560P
      • Case:
      • Silverstone TJ08-E
      • Operating System:
      • W10 pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Viewsonic vx3211-2k-mhd, Dell P2414H

    Re: If you had the choice...

    The frequency difference isn't that great - the 7700K should hit 4.4 GHz on all cores, and the 8086K should hit 4.3 GHz at stock settings
    https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/1...i7-8086k-14nm/

    The 8086K system also has the option of going to an 8 core chip in future (9900K is supported), the 7700K system is as good as it's ever going to get (i.e. an i3 with hyperthreading)

  11. Received thanks from:


  12. #7
    blueball
    Guest

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Thanks all. Looks like 8086.

  13. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    3,888
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked
    971 times in 717 posts

    Re: If you had the choice...

    What percentage of usage is Photoshop, and what gaming? And what about relative importance?

    Will the games you want benefit from extra threafs?

    Photoshop didn't used to be good at utilusing cores/threads, but due to the subscription model, I haven't updated since it went CC.

    I remember a principal software architect at Adobe talking about it. His logic was that relatively few of PS's tasks were suitable for breaking into chunks, and that Photoshop usage strongly tended to working on one file at a time, with most tasks being essentially linear, because later bits relied on earlier bits, so couldn't start until those earlier bits had concluded.

    The result was that sheer horsepower tended to be a better bet, but I've no idea how much 4.0 v 4.2 would make. And there were some effects that could be broken down into non-linear chunks.

    But as I said, I'm outta touch on this stuff. So I just raise the question.

    That said my gut tells me it won't make much difference in either PS or most games.

    Which would I chose? Probably cores but not because of either PS or gaming.
    Last edited by Saracen999; 02-09-2019 at 10:26 AM. Reason: Tpyo's

  14. Received thanks from:


  15. #9
    Spreadie
    Guest

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by blueball View Post
    ...would you take 4 cores @ 4.2GHz with HT or 6 cores @ 4GHz with HT. Usage is mix of Photoshop and gaming.

    4.2GHz is i7-7700K on Gigabyte Z270
    4.0GHz is i7-8086K on an Asus Z370A
    Also, those figures are the base clocks - the 7700K has a higher base and boosts to 4.5GHz, but the 8086K boosts to 5GHz.

  16. Received thanks from:

    kalniel (02-09-2019)

  17. #10
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,975
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked
    1,584 times in 1,339 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spreadie View Post
    Also, those figures are the base clocks - the 7700K has a higher base and boosts to 4.5GHz, but the 8086K boosts to 5GHz.
    Given the 8086K is basically an overclocked 8700K, that shows through in this review benchmark, though both of them get beaten by the Ryzen 3600.




    (from https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...marks-vs-intel)

  18. Received thanks from:


  19. #11
    Spreadie
    Guest

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    Given the 8086K is basically an overclocked 8700K, that shows through in this review benchmark, though both of them get beaten by the Ryzen 3600.
    Which is why I said AMD could be a better option.

  20. Received thanks from:


  21. #12
    MCRN Tachi Ttaskmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    6,916
    Thanks
    672
    Thanked
    806 times in 668 posts
    • Ttaskmaster's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Aorus Master X670E
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7800X3D
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Corsair Dominator DDR5 6000MHz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Evo 120GB and Seagate Baracuda 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Aorus Master 4090
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 1000W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li V3000 Plus
      • Operating System:
      • Win11
      • Monitor(s):
      • Gigabyte M32U
      • Internet:
      • 900Mbps Gigaclear WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Which one overclocks better?
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Tyson
    like a chihuahua urinating on a towering inferno...

  22. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked
    32 times in 30 posts
    • PC-LAD's system
      • Motherboard:
      • X370 GT7
      • CPU:
      • R5 3600 @ 4.3GHz
      • Memory:
      • 4*4 GB TG Delta @2933
      • Storage:
      • 128gb Sandisk SSD plus, 1tb SeaGate Barracuda, 640GB WD Black, 500gb WD Blue sata ssd
      • Graphics card(s):
      • RX 580 8GB
      • PSU:
      • Evga G+650w
      • Case:
      • MasterBox 5 Lite TemG
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • MSI Optix G24C
      • Internet:
      • 10 up 70 Down

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by Spreadie View Post
    Which is why I said AMD could be a better option.
    Strangely enough though in that table a OC'd 9600k beats the 3600, even the 9700k (think those results are a bit skewed) -\(+_+)/-

  23. #14
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,975
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked
    1,584 times in 1,339 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by PC-LAD View Post
    Strangely enough though in that table a OC'd 9600k beats the 3600, even the 9700k (think those results are a bit skewed) -\(+_+)/-
    Photoshop is an odd benchmark, hence it seemed worth digging some results out. As Saracen remarked, it is largely single core limited but it doesn't seem as simple as that. I expect cache and SSE throughput for that core are important too (something is making up the clock speed deficit of that 3600 rather nicely).

  24. #15
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: If you had the choice...

    I could be wrong but I thought modern versions of PS used multi threading very well?

  25. #16
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,975
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked
    1,584 times in 1,339 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: If you had the choice...

    Quote Originally Posted by freebooter View Post
    I could be wrong but I thought modern versions of PS used multi threading very well?
    Look at the above graph towards the bottom, and there are figures for overclocked 1600 and 1700 processors at the same 3.9GHz frequency. The 1700 is very slightly faster, so that is either down to the extra 2 cores or the cache that those cores contain or a bit of both. Either way those extra cores are helping, just not very much.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •