• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

PC CPUs and cores

Digby

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
1,682
Likes
1,599
Can anyone explain what kind of programs use only single or double cores, as opposed quad/octo cores on CPUs. I know many programs don't make use of 8 cores, but what makes use of 4 cores. Does a web browser and other simple programs utilise 4 cores or only 1 or 2? Is performance on the first core or two more important for most typical computing tasks, than from 4 to 8+?

TLDR how do you decide if superior single core performance is more important than better 8+ core performance, and in what circumstances is 8+ core performance more important?
 
Any modern software is multithreaded at this point, so will utilize multi-core CPUs automatically. Your browser most likely runs hundreds of threads in parallel.

The trick is, however, that not all of them actually do a lot. Only a handful will actually be very active, and the fewer threads a software has that do actual work, the worse it will scale with more CPUs.

I would say that for any normal job you do, any current medium-model CPU should be more than fine. Some games don't scale well with more CPUs, so a faster lower-core CPU may be better. Other games are the opposite. And any bit of other software that needs CPU power (things like 3D/video rendering, etc.), will usually be able to hog all your CPUs and scale up to at least 16 cores just fine (or use your GPU).

What kind of stuff do you want your computer to do?
 
What kind of stuff do you want your computer to do?
Relatively basic stuff, usually web browsing and nothing much more taxing than that. No games on this PC, no transcoding. I suppose I want to know if there is any value in going from a processor like the intel i3-13100 (4 cores) to something like the Ryzen 7735HS (8 cores), which has a similar single/double/quad core score, but also those extra cores - will the extra cores be noticeable? These are the kind of processors I'm looking at, mostly inside mini PCs.

I did notice a jump in responsiveness and OS load time moving from 2.5" SSD to M2 drives, and as these are a similar price now, M2 seems no brainer.

Would moving from 4 to 8 core CPU give any noticeable improvement? I know for basic tasks you could probably get away with a 10yr old PC, but I have a certain degree of responsiveness I'm after and what with Windows imposing a degree of planned obsolescence on hardware, it seems running something relatively new hardware wise is a given for me (I know, I have been meaning to try Linux for only, oh...I dunno...15 years now, but never get around to it :D)
 
Relatively basic stuff, usually web browsing and nothing much more taxing than that. No games on this PC, no transcoding. I suppose I want to know if there is any value in going from a processor like the intel i3-13100 (4 cores) to something like the Ryzen 7735HS (8 cores), which has a similar single/double/quad core score, but also those extra cores - will the extra cores be noticeable? These are the kind of processors I'm looking at, mostly inside mini PCs.

I did notice a jump in responsiveness and OS load time moving from 2.5" SSD to M2 drives, and as these are a similar price now, M2 seems no brainer.

Would moving from 4 to 8 core CPU give any noticeable improvement? I know for basic tasks you could probably get away with a 10yr old PC, but I have a certain degree of responsiveness I'm after and what with Windows imposing a degree of planned obsolescence on hardware, it seems running something relatively new hardware wise is a given for me (I know, I have been meaning to try Linux for only, oh...I dunno...15 years now, but never get around to it :D)
The 13100 is fine for the things you do, and will be fine for a few years. You should count yourself lucky not having gone with a 13th gen i5, i7 or i9 as they are rapidly failing.
 
You should count yourself lucky not having gone with a 13th gen i5, i7 or i9 as they are rapidly failing.
Yes, I am very happy I didn't go for something further up the scale. Voltage problems I think, some say some kind of corrosion too? (hope that doesn't affect my CPU).

The 13100 is fine for the things you do,
Sure, but the 2400g I was using before that was "fine" too, but was getting a bit old and I like to change hardware while it still has some resale value. I am sure if I compared it to my current hardware it would be perceptibly slower in response and loading times.No double blind testing of this, I'm afraid, but what I am wondering is if there is anything that can show what kind of improvements one should expect from x upgrade in x scenario.

Obviously my usage is rather simple, but the question is open whether a palpable benefit will be seen with the extra 4 cores and then, for me at least, whether any associated cost would be worth the extra expenditure.
 
I suppose I want to know if there is any value in going from a processor like the intel i3-13100 (4 cores) to something like the Ryzen 7735HS (8 cores), which has a similar single/double/quad core score, but also those extra cores - will the extra cores be noticeable? These are the kind of processors I'm looking at, mostly inside mini PCs.
This isn't exactly a fair comparison. The i3 is a desktop CPU, while the Ryzen is a mobile chip. They have different power envelopes, leading to quite similar performance even though the Ryzen actually has more cores. Still, the AMD chip will do better in multithreaded tasks and waste less power.

Overall, if both would cost the same, I would go for the higher CPU count. Probably spend some extra money on RAM, 32GB is no luxury and not super expensive nowadays.

Sure, but the 2400g I was using before that was "fine" too
It's about half as fast as the two you mentioned in single-core performance, and about 3x as slow in multicore applications.. so you'll gain a lot.
 
You can look up Hardware Unboxed on youtube, they've done comparisons in this regards, mostly related to gaming, but you might be surprised as to how little benefit this usually is. I find it highly unlikely a normal desktop user, who browses the web and uses the occasional office programs, will see benefit in more than 4 cores. Your processor is recent, it performs well. There are many use-cases for "more threads more better", but general personal computer use is not core limited.

I have a few computers at home, among them is a 16 core Xeon and my main computer is an 8 core Ryzen. Except for very exact use-cases I would not notice the difference in regards to number of cores, and don't expect to for the next 3-4 years at least.

(Written from a 4 core 8th gen)
 
This isn't exactly a fair comparison. The i3 is a desktop CPU, while the Ryzen is a mobile chip. They have different power envelopes, leading to quite similar performance even though the Ryzen actually has more cores. Still, the AMD chip will do better in multithreaded tasks and waste less power.
I gave those two as examples because these are two similar chips used in the type of mini PCs I typically buy. They often used mobile chips. The Ryzen PC ends up around £100 more expensive, so I feel it is not worth the extra money for my purposes.

Probably spend some extra money on RAM, 32GB is no luxury and not super expensive nowadays.
I don't think I've ever seen more than about 9GB RAM usage in task manager and have a billion tabs open. I'm not sure what program I would use to breach 16GB.

I find it highly unlikely a normal desktop user, who browses the web and uses the occasional office programs, will see benefit in more than 4 cores.
I have a few computers at home, among them is a 16 core Xeon and my main computer is an 8 core Ryzen. Except for very exact use-cases I would not notice the difference in regards to number of cores, and don't expect to for the next 3-4 years at least.
Yes, this is my general feeling too.
 
The 13100 is fine for the things you do, and will be fine for a few years. You should count yourself lucky not having gone with a 13th gen i5, i7 or i9 as they are rapidly failing.
Is it clear the 13100 isn't at risk of failure too? Intel's July update only mentioned generations, not specific processors. For this reason alone I'd be waiting to see if the microcode fix actually works, or buying AMD.

(written from 12th gen 12 core, but the 2 core G4400 still feels fine under linux)
 
Is it clear the 13100 isn't at risk of failure too?
No one really knows except for Intel. But it seems it might not be affected by the same issues as the "real" 13th/14th gen cpus - as it is said to be refresh of the 12100. It would also be less likely it would request higher voltages, burning out the ring bus, as it both has fewer cores, no e-cores, clocked lower and has lower power limits.
 
I gave those two as examples because these are two similar chips used in the type of mini PCs I typically buy. They often used mobile chips. The Ryzen PC ends up around £100 more expensive, so I feel it is not worth the extra money for my purposes
Intel claim the 13th and 14th gen mobile CPUs don't have the same issues as the desktop ones. That said, between April and July they were blaming motherboard manufacturers for the desktop issues, so a pinch of salt may be in order.
 
gave those two as examples because these are two similar chips used in the type of mini PCs I typically buy. They often used mobile chips. The Ryzen PC ends up around £100 more expensive, so I feel it is not worth the extra money for my purposes.
If the CPU is really the only difference... What specific models are you looking at? I have an Intel NUC 12th gen i5-1240P, which works perfectly fine as Proxmox server. It's about as fast as the AMD CPU and should be a bit faster than the i3, but has a lot more cores.

I don't think I've ever seen more than about 9GB RAM usage in task manager and have a billion tabs open. I'm not sure what program I would use to breach 16GB.
My browser alone easily goes past 10 GB. your billion tabs must be less than mine ;)
 
Intel claim the 13th and 14th gen mobile CPUs don't have the same issues as the desktop ones. That said, between April and July they were blaming motherboard manufacturers for the desktop issues, so a pinch of salt may be in order.
That is true, but I think Intel made a statement regarding only 65W+ TDP chips having the issue. I don't think any lower chips (13100 is 60w) have been reported having this issue in the wild, but then they are probably under less stress generally. You can never be sure, but given what we believe/know about the situation, I feel "somewhat" secure that the 13100 won't have issues - pray for me :oops:

If the CPU is really the only difference... What specific models are you looking at? I have an Intel NUC 12th gen i5-1240P, which works perfectly fine as Proxmox server. It's about as fast as the AMD CPU and should be a bit faster than the i3, but has a lot more cores.
The model I'm using is MSI DP21. I transplanted some bits from another computer (DDR4 RAM and M2). Does DDR5 make any difference in performance compared to DDR4 is everyday applications? I'm guessing this is another minimal impact thing. This is the unit I was comparing mine to:


which with the ram and storage option (I'd definitely need new ram) would end up being significantly more expensive than what I paid for current unit (barebones). I think I am happy for now.

My browser alone easily goes past 10 GB. your billion tabs must be less than mine ;)
I suppose my billion is about 35-ish, then I start accidentally clicking the x instead of the tab, which infuriates me and reminds me to do some tidying up.
 
If you've got 32GB to @Digby's 16GB your browsers may be behaving differently regarding memory consumption (suspending unused tabs etc.)
Sure, if you have more memory, it will be used.

Also, remember that your OS uses a shitload of it for caching. Both these things will usually make a system with more memory run more smoothly, even though the lower memory system may not be using all of it.

Does DDR5 make any difference in performance compared to DDR4 is everyday applications?
Nope, usually it does not, or very little,see:


It's curious, from what I can see, the AMD system should be a bit cheaper, but it may depend on the specific config chosen.
 
That is true, but I think Intel made a statement regarding only 65W+ TDP chips having the issue. I don't think any lower chips (13100 is 60w) have been reported having this issue in the wild, but then they are probably under less stress generally. You can never be sure, but given what we believe/know about the situation, I feel "somewhat" secure that the 13100 won't have issues - pray for me :oops:
I haven't seen a statement like that, but could easily have missed it. Good luck if that's the way you go.
 
Also, remember that your OS uses a shitload of it for caching. Both these things will usually make a system with more memory run more smoothly, even though the lower memory system may not be using all of it.
Is there any way to optimise this? Generally I am sitting around 30-40% RAM used and rarely above 50-60%, so if I can force it to use more, perhaps that would be a good thing?

I said a billion tabs, but at the moment about 15 in total over two browsers, so maybe I am getting better in my bad habits :D

It's curious, from what I can see, the AMD system should be a bit cheaper, but it may depend on the specific config chosen.
The DP21 barebones was available for around £200 (perhaps because of this whole 13th gen fiasco?) and I already had the RAM and storage.
 
Is there any way to optimise this? Generally I am sitting around 30-40% RAM used and rarely above 50-60%, so if I can force it to use more, perhaps that would be a good thing?
Not really. Depends on your habits. I have 32gigs in both my main system, I very seldomly see usage above 16, and in those cases I am doing something specific which allocates memory. With SSDs, and NVmes in particular, memory is not AS important as it might once have been in most cases. The fattest memory hog is Chrome, and some websites can really push it. If you do any graphics or editing memory is important, as are other use-cases. You should scratch your upgrade fix with a nice office chair or a monitor instead of upgrading a perfectly adequate computer :)
 
As a custodian to a range of computers of all ages, I can tell you that a Core 2 Duo is no longer very much fun to use in this day and age even with an SSD and on Windows 7. They don't scale too well with multithreaded loads and memory performance is a bit meh especially with DDR2. Browsers have gotten more memory-hungry and more aggressively multithreaded, and loading a saved Firefox session with a few windows and a number of tabs each rather bogs down even a substantially newer i5-3230M 2C/4T affair. 4C/4T desktop i5s still are holding up pretty OK though.

Now I don't notice much of a difference between my i7-11700 and my parents' i3-12100 - if anything, the latter is a bit zippier. I generally run mine with slightly throttled turbo multipliers for reduced energy consumption, and with JEDEC spec DDR4 while theirs has average XMP stuff (DDR4-3200 CL16-18-18 @ 1.35 V), but even in the best of cases the newer CPU has better single-thread performance and it shows. Not to mention it gets to like 0.8 W package power at idle where mine basically never makes it below 2 W, with a similarly large disparity when playing YT videos (at 2x speed, 1-13 to 21ish W is not uncommon here, vs. maybe 4-8 W).

Between a 13100 and a 7735HS, the one I'd rather have in a mini PC would probably be the AMD job. Single-threaded performance seems to be similar enough, but you can definitely get over 70 W out of a 12100 if you insist (with Prime95 small FFTs). Usually it won't be as much but still over 40 W. Yes, of course you can set your power limits as you please with ThrottleStop and whatnot, but you can definitely annoy the cooling system in a mini PC quite substantially (alongside your hearing). I would rather have one in an ITX build than a typical NUC.

That being said, either would make a good upgrade from a 2400G. +50% single-threaded is nothing to sneeze at and should be quite easily felt.

On another note, make sure your Windows Defender exclusion list is well-kept. Lightweight but I/O-heavy software like Foobar2000 can be bogged down heavily otherwise. I've been tempted to put the entire Foobar directory on there as that reduces startup time from annoying long to 2 seconds flat on the aforementioned i5-3230M machine, though it seems the biggest hit was from user-components. (I've also put library-v2.0 and playlists-v2.0 folders in there, note the change from pre-2.0 Foobar.) All the endings for typical music file types are in there as well, which made a massive difference in responsiveness e.g. when skipping tracks, alongside video file types, image files like DNG, space hogs like ISO, ZIP and 7Z, plus a few odds and ends like SQLITE and whatnot. Then there's misc. other things like the Firefox cache (in AppData\Local) and Thunderbird profile (+cache), Amazon Music data or Windows' SoftwareDistribution folder. Obviously there is a certain tradeoff with safety so things have to be well-considered.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom