Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed
Surely 8 cores is better than 4 core with 4 threads...?
No matter the clock speed (to a certain degree - not 1GHZ crap haha)
Well, 4670k is a notch up from a 2600k (4c/8t) in terms of encoding speeds. Piledriver 8-thread was somewhat of a rival with 3770k, but haswell likes video encoder loads, gets good benefit from architectural enhancements and modern video encoders (x264 at least) are able to implement avx2 instructions for a (quoting x264 dev) ~5% speedup on top of other IPC gains, which makes 8350~=3770k~=4670k
I'm able to fight with FX 8-threads without enabling HT for those loads, and a guy who benched in the AMD thread before with a 3930k only had like a 20% lead, 12 thread vs 8
Here's a bench actually.. I took multiple, and not sure where to find them:
~7.28fps for 3930k
~6.1fps for 4770k
~5.18fps for 4670k
~5.11fps for 8350
That puts 8350 at 100% performance
4670k at 101.4% performance
4770k at 119.4% performance
3930k at 142.5% performance
(at the same clock speed)
Maybe not so fair on fx (with a 200mhz or more clockspeed lead, should win vs i5) but it probably even depends on what you're encoding and settings etc, basically they're very close on air. Within a few %.
7.28 / 6.1 = 1.19x speed advantage for 3930k over 4770k, clock for clock on that bench.
More threads help, but only when they're fast enough. FX does not scale to 8x performance with 8 threads, it's usually only like 6-7x due to shared resources, which means they have to be closer than they are in IPC to win clock for clock, even with 2x the threads.
It's a very common misconception that a CPU with more cores/threads should automatically win if they can be utilized. FX has shown itself to be weaker to point where it uses the extra threads to stay on par, not get ahead. That's why the unlocked FX 8-thread die is dropping to ~£105 in UK yet i've never seen 4670k hit £160 or 4770k drop below £240Edited by Cyro999 - 4/10/14 at 3:04pm