In almost any case, with a proper, modern compiler, compilation speed will increase near linearly with the number of hardware threads on your system. In the case of Microsoft compilers, even running with 8GB will be plenty fine, as they are fairly stingy with memory allocation. However, on *nix, I have capped out even 16GB with parallel make and GCC.
What exactly is hyper-threading?
This is a process where your processor simulates another processor core, allowing better multithreading/etc.
For example, a dual core machine with hyperthreading will have:
2 physical cores
4 virtual cores
In some sense, this allows the processor to "pretend" to have more cores.
When should I buy a processor that ...
I know that everybody will recommend Intel, except me. However, sometimes Intel is not the best. The price/performance of an i5 6400 vs AMD FX-8350 (I'd recommend looking into the FX-8320E as well, because it is just as well binned as the 8350, but $40 cheaper) is that the FX-8350 is winning, in my opinion
Nearly double performance, ...
Any overclockable Intel CPU, if you're willing, or the i7 4790K ($317.99@SuperBiiz) if you're not. Don't just look at clock speed. AMD's FX 9590 has a 5 GHz boost speed, but is slower than Intel's offerings because of a low IPC.
A good budget option for overclockers is the dual core Pentium G3258 ($64.99@NCIX), at a mere U$65. Intel released this unlocked ...
The i7 5820K would be much faster than the i7 6700K. None of the programs you will use will benefit from an i7 5820K or even an i7 6700K for that matter. An i5 6600K will be enough for what you are doing. The 5820K will only benefit from much larger multithreaded workloads (such as virtualization or video rendering) and where more PCIe lanes are needed (...
I would actually not recommend either of the platforms that you had in mind, and go with the LGA 1151 Skylake Processors. These require DDR4 RAM and are the newest CPUs that Intel has released. For what you are doing, I would recommend the i7-6700K, that costs $350. Also with 1x8GB of DDR4 RAM would be expandable and enough for now. The Motherboard that I ...
Note that I don't have personal experience with either laptop, but I do have experience with the kinds of information you're using to make your decision.
I would definitely go with the Z50 here. To enumerate the pertinent specs:
The Z50 has a better display than the G50 (1920 x 1080 vs. 1366 x 768). To put that in perspective, my (non-Retina) 13" MacBook ...
I have two i7-4790 (3.6GHz) Intel processors. One is in a machine I use only for gaming and the other is in my development machine. Using the link that ArtOfCode provided, this processor currently (September 2015) sits in 6th for Single Thread Performance (behind the 4GHz version of the same processor and some Xeon chips).
Newegg lists the price as $310.
I'd recommend Intel, they're really reliable, have low power consumption and future-proof if you're into keeping your rig for more than 3-4 years.
AMD has a good performance/price ratio, but are more risky, heat issues and useless cores for marketing.
For gaming just rely on a good GPU, the CPU bottle neck is pretty much a myth if you have an i5 ...
TL;DR: Ryzen, unless you plan on never, ever touching this computer after building it.
Let's take a quick look at the advantages/disadvantages:
Ryzen | FX
Performance | Performance/$
Platform | Platform cost
Upgrade path |
While I'm having ...
Looking over the specs of the 5820K versus the 6700K, notable differences are:
Larger cache (15MB vs 8MB)
More cores and threads
Higher memory bandwidth
All of these would probably be of benefit when working, however it has a lower clock speed. That might be the dealbreaker here, as while having lots of threads is great for multitasking (and possibly ...
This could help you find your answer.
As you can see for photo editing the 6700k is pretty good but not the best
As you can see here, the 5960x does beat it quite often then not but it's also 3 times the price
So between the 6700k and 5820k
multicore: 5820k is about 25% faster.
singlecore the 6700k is 23% faster.
these are from benchmark scores
Honestly it won't make much of a difference.
While they are clocked differently, all of the core M chips (and indeed, all modern CPUs) are designed to throttle down when not in use.
The exact voltage and frequency depends on binning, so the higher tier chips could have a slight advantage, but it's negligible compared to usage by screen.
If you really ...
The i3-2120 is likely to be a bottleneck to the system if you were to only upgrade your graphics card to a GTX 970. The i3-2120 is only a dual-core CPU (with 4 threads), while the i5-3470 is quad-core; many modern games benefit from multiple CPU cores (and some even require a four-core CPU, such as Fallout 4).
The i5-3470 is much more efficient and newer ...
What is hyper-threading and how does it work? does a good job at explaining what hyper-threading is:
Hyper-threading is where your processor pretends to have 2 physical
processor cores, yet only has 1 and some extra junk.
The point of hyperthreading is that many times when you are executing
code in the processor, there are parts of the processor ...
I'm currently doing 4k gaming - a 980TI is probably the most sensible option - its 90% of the performance of this generation's titan at 75% of the cost stock but I'd wait for the next generation if possible. On one hand they promise massive improvements. On the other hand, last gen hardware is cheaper.
What do I base this on?
I'm running a ivy bridge core ...
Of the three notebook options you've provided, I'd personally go with i3 5005u. Using cpuboss.com, it is clear that the i3 has significantly better single core and multi-core performance than the Pentium n3700. You probably won't need the extra performance for web browsing and document editing, but it will come in handy in a situation where a little more ...
I suggest the AMD A8-7600 for maximum lifespan. I've built a few systems with this APU by now, so I can be fairly confident in recommending it. It offers a good mix of single core, multicore, and GPU performance with a TDP of 65W, and it offers low overall system cost because mATX boards for this APU are inexpensive. It costs only about ~70, but it offers ...
Apparently this CPU is a bad combination with my GPU; I have been told that they will not work together.
That CPU and GPU will work together just fine.
GPU's are designed to be compatible with most CPU architectures, including offerings from Intel and AMD. Ryzen is AMD's new platform, and just like any new release there were some kinks to work out in ...
After seeing @Alpha3031's comment, I checked the Gigabyte site. v3.1 of the board is AM3+, v1.3 is AM3 with this additional note:
If you install AMD AM3 CPU on this motherboard, the system bus speed
will downgrade from HT3.0 (5200MT/s) to HT1.0 (2000 MT/s) spec.
Gigabyte's product pages for the two versions:
GA-M68MT-S2 (rev. 1.3)
GA-M68MT-S2 (rev. ...
Plex suggests a passmark score of >2000, and suggests a core2duo at 2.4ghz as a minimum for a single 1080P stream.
I initially looked at the modern 'atom' architecture celerons but they're a bit too weak. If you didn't need realtime, 1080p transcoding they're excellent.
As such at modern processors a dual core 'pentium' based off a 'core' architecture ...
GPU is usually faster, but I cannot find GPU benchmarks for Handbrake, so I'll recommend a CPU. Keep in mind that using the CPU I recommend, you need a new motherboard.
I'd recommend an AMD FX-8320E. The 8320 because it's practically AMD's top of the line, and the 'E' because that basically means it's better binned, and they are both the same price at the ...
When it comes to gaming CPU recommendations, take a look at Tom's Hardware's Best CPUs for the Money which provides well-founded recommendations for all price ranges. In your case, the Core i5-6500 is a good bet if you aren't interested in overclocking, or the Core i5-6600K if you are. They're both based on Skylake, the latest architecture from Intel, and ...
The best available CPU at ~70$ U.S. is the AMD Athlon X4 860K. It is an FM2+ socket Kaveri chip with for compute cores. It is clocked at 3.7 Gigahertz stock, though generally has very good overclocking potential, if interested, and also happens to be the CPU that powers my system.
Pretty much any Intel CPU beats it out in single core performance at stock, ...
The issue with your question is there's no allusion or reference to compute requirements. This puts some of your requirements at odds with each other. Observe:
Intel® Core™ i7-6920HQ Processor (6th Generation)
Base Freq. 2.9 GHz.
4 Cores, 8 Threads
Intel® Core™ i3-6100H Processor (6th Generation)
Base Freq. 2.7 GHz.
2 Cores, ...
It is not possible to run 2 x i7 because they are consumer grade CPUs and do not support multi CPU configurations. I do not believe there is a laptop that can simultaneously use 2 CPUs at once because of power and thermal limitations.
You should look into mobile workstations that feature either an Xeon or an i7 Extreme edition CPU with at least 16GB of RAM. ...
If you are willing to do a bit more work on integration with whatever you want to run, you can try a Parallella board. That gives you a 16 core RISC co processor plus a dual core main processor on a board the size of a credit card.
They use very little energy and are specifically designed to be used in clusters or in parallel (hence the name) applications.
Given that compiling is a thread-heavy job, your user is best off with the i7 that most cheaply gets them the most threads. Given that all i7 CPUs on the 1150 socket feature 8 threads, that means simply getting them the cheapest i7 you can put in that socket, which would likely be the Intel Core i7-4770S or Intel Core i7-4790.
As an aside, Xeon processors ...
It's actually totally possible. AMD was supposed to release dev boards based on their new Opteron A1100 octocore ARM APU, but as you can see, there have been severe difficulties with actually getting anyone to ship the darn things.
Another tantalizing possibility is the MP30-AR0 Server Board by Gigabyte. Again, finding anyone willing to ship this stupid ...
The real question is:
What do you need it for?
I wouldn't really care about the processor, as long as you don't do anything requiring an intensive processing power.
You can find a lot of cpu comparing sites by searching on any search engine "cpu compare" or "cpu benchmark".
The SSD will gargantuanly benefit the performance. The computer ...