Related
so now that the latest beta of siyah kernel supports enabling/disabling of the 2nd core, and tegrak already released an app for it, i just want to know the possible effects in performance/battery if you use the different options of the 2nd core app.. especially when we use the single core option.. so what will happen to our phone when we run HD games, and im sure that it will extend the battery life, just not sure how the phone will behave with only 1 core running.. and will it be bad for our phone to only run at a single core..
and also, am i right to assume that our phone has the option "dynamic hotplug" by default?
Shouldn't see much of a decrease in the performance. The sgs has a single core yet the cpu can still handle anything thrown against it. Point being there is nothing out that demands dual core performance. On another note note, hd games are not actually gd. It is just advertising point for game developers.
$1 gets you a reply
Using one core instead won't break your cpu. It gonna make your phone cooler ( ! core is running producing less heat and the heat dissipator is made for the dual core ) and have a better battery life obviously. It will, obviously too, slow down your phone, but the speed lost is to be determined. You might want to test it out to see if it's getting laggy or simply suck. As already said, the SGS I has a 1Ghz proc and can handle most of the top recent content available so with a 1.2 Ghz single core, you should be able to handle everything available, specially with an optimized kernel like siyah. And you are right, the default mode is dynamic hotplug, which use both core when needed and turn the core 1 ( 2nd core ) off when not needed.
I tried playing a little with it. The overall smootness doesn't change and i get about the same fps in nenamark2. The only game i saw stuttering a little more in single mode was Shadowgun, the others are just the same. I also have the feeling that cpu noise is reduced while playing music through headsets when you run on single.
I like the idea of switching off one core. But while using only one core this leads to a higher load on that corse. This will result in higher frequencies an thus higher battery consumption?
So might using only one core even be worse for battery life?
I mean isn't that the reason why you use multiple cores? That one does not have to produce cpu with high frequencies? I think I once read that the energy a cpu uses it proportional to the frequency squared. So it is not a linear relation. That means two cores on 500 MHz are using less power than one cpu on 1000 Mhz. Can someone confirm that? So if th os is optimized for multiple cores the energy consumptions will be less.
What do you think or know about Android. Is it managing two cores intelligently an thus reducing energy consumption or are we doing better with switching off one core?
Hi,
is anybody out there who can share any experiences with this 2nd Core app?
It would be very interesting whether it really saves battery(and if yes, is it noticeably or is it a huge difference)? Are there any negative effects in speed oder stability?
Rgds
I don't particularly care about potential battery saving, but I use it to manually disable one core while playing games which have problems with SoundPool ( see http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=17623 ), such as Galcon, as this mitigates the problems.
Schindler33 said:
I like the idea of switching off one core. But while using only one core this leads to a higher load on that corse. This will result in higher frequencies an thus higher battery consumption?
So might using only one core even be worse for battery life?
I mean isn't that the reason why you use multiple cores? That one does not have to produce cpu with high frequencies? I think I once read that the energy a cpu uses it proportional to the frequency squared. So it is not a linear relation. That means two cores on 500 MHz are using less power than one cpu on 1000 Mhz. Can someone confirm that? So if th os is optimized for multiple cores the energy consumptions will be less.
What do you think or know about Android. Is it managing two cores intelligently an thus reducing energy consumption or are we doing better with switching off one core?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totlly agree
Hi,
perhaps you will be able to help me "imagine" what to expect from TF810 and its Atom SoC.
A while ago I had Asus 1201N (http://uk.asus.com/Eee/Eee_PC/Eee_PC_1201N_Seashell/#specifications) with 2GB of RAM and Atom 330 (http://ark.intel.com/products/35641/Intel-Atom-Processor-330-1M-Cache-1_60-GHz-533-MHz-FSB) on board.
System belonged to Nevidia ION platform - meaning it had dedicated graphics card on board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Ion#Ion_.28first-generation_Nvidia_Ion.29).
In terms of performance, video playback and every day usability I was totally satisfied with this system.
Its only problem was heat - lots and lots of it, even when netbook was hardly doing anything.
How can TF810 compare to 1201N?
Will it work in a assimilable way?
I understand that CPU itself should be more powerful than 1st gen of Atom... but how will this strange graphic card built in this SOC stuck up against Nvidia ION?
What can I expect?
Stack up in terms of what? it plays video perfectly fine, though I haven't tried more than 1080p mkv's on it.
The TF810C has the POWER VR SGX545 built into the Atom Z2760. It's above the iPad 3 SGX543 and below iPad 4 SGX554, but considering the absurd resolution of the iPad chances are it's more than on par with iPad 4.
It should also outperform the Tegra 3 and Mali 400 without breaking a sweat.
Speaking the PC language the SGX545 positions itself between the GMA 3600 (400mhz) and 3650 (640mhz) at 533mhz but Intel is likely to have optimized the chip further. The results are modest either way 260-285/420-440 points in 3D Mark 2006. However the technologies for full HD video playback have been much improved.
Depending on the drivers you could expect +200 points fluctuations. Others have noticed better performance with the HP drivers but have gotten screen flickering instead. Asus has not yet released updated drivers, mine are stock.
The ION you had was the 9400M which according to notebookckeck is outperformed by the desktop 9300ION.
The ION (9400M) scores in 3Dmark '06 1100 to 2200 points. In a notebook that was burning up you probably got the lower clock speed so it's doubtfull any netebook ever went far past 1100 points.
On such low scores 600 points barely make a difference. A small difference is something like 2000 points and it wouldn't justify a video card update. However I listed a few nice games that will work on the TF810C and in most cases they look far better than today's tablet ARM games: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2117486
On the CPU side you can expect improved performance but not much. From 330's 1600mhz you will get to 1800mhz on the Z2760. The boost will be 200mhz fair and square. What will matter the most is windows 8 that IMHO is the fastest and most fluid windows ever made.
You shouldn't worry much about the cpu, because the bottleneck is the eMMC that is about as fast as any 5400 RPM HDD. By no means does it achieve SSD like speeds, not without a SATA or USB 3.0 controller that is.
Regarding heat, we're talking more than ten times (10x) less wsted heat. The 330 had an 8W TDP while the nVidia ION 12W TDP. Well, you're in for a shock, the Atom Z2760 does everything better for 1.7W TDP!:cyclops:
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html
Bec07 said:
The TF810C has the POWER VR SGX545 built into the Atom Z2760. It's above the iPad 3 SGX543 and below iPad 4
[...]
On the CPU side you can expect improved performance but not much. From 330's 1600mhz you will get to 1800mhz on the Z2760. The boost will be 200mhz fair and square. What will matter the most is windows 8 that IMHO is the fastest and most fluid windows ever made.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! All that sounds quite optimistic.
Especially that I still own Samsung NC-10 and got access over the weekends to Nokia Booklet 3g. Both run first gen of Atom (same chip I had in Asus 1201N but just one of then - single core) - and performance is terrible .
Video playback is almost non existent, any operation (start Chrome, Control Panel, etc) takes ages, scrolling through web sites is difficult.
But from what I have seen W8 + new Atom = completely different (as it should be! ) experience ,
| just wanted to make sure I am not wrong here...
For me this will not be gaming device (previous was not as well) - so as long as I can browse in peace (and comfort), use Wordpress (impossible on the ipad) with few tabs open, Office , some 720p videos (+ Netflix and finally HULU for free!!! [with W8 device I can ditch Hulu Plus subscription!]) and perhaps Fruit Ninja from time to time.... I am more than happy!
So I've been noticing somethin strange other then the experia z every single other high end device that will come out as of 2013 will be using a 1.7GHZ snapdragon the only high end device that will use a lower one is experia z why????? I mean the phone hasn't come out yet can't they just put the 1.7GHZ instead? why use a lower one 1.5GHZ from phones of the fourth quarter of 2012 its old tech!!!
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
Calm down man, 1.5GHz quadcore is good for Android. Android really doesn't need such a high speeds
And CPU clock doesn't mean smoother device
Sent from my LT26i using xda app-developers app
1.5Ghz Quad Core is not "only". And they all use exactly the same CPU which operates with 1,5-1,7Ghz speed. Clock speed isn't everything. Look at the iPhone - it uses dual core 1.2Ghz CPU - yet its performance is 5 times smoother than most quad core devices...
Dual core is more than enough for anything a smartphone might need to do - as long as you put good software on it.
gabrielpina4 said:
So I've been noticing somethin strange other then the experia z every single other high end device that will come out as of 2013 will be using a 1.7GHZ snapdragon the only high end device that will use a lower one is experia z why????? I mean the phone hasn't come out yet can't they just put the 1.7GHZ instead? why use a lower one 1.5GHZ from phones of the fourth quarter of 2012 its old tech!!!
Sent from my SCH-I510 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seriously? "Only" on a quad core 1.5ghz CPU for a smartphone? What are you gonna run on your phone that would require you more? Or do you just want your battery to drain more for no possible reasons? Some users even just underclock for the sake of saving battery.
If you ask me I buy this because of the features and the RAM not because of processor clock.
If you ever let me choose I would rather go for a 1ghz dual core processor with 4GB RAM than having a 2ghz quad core processor with 2GB RAM.
The only reason why I would want the Qualcomm S4 Pro processor is because of adreno 320.
A dual core is good enough dude .. this is a quad core lol
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
No offense but you just sound like your trolling. Same goes for your other thread too
AK4TAY7BEN said:
No offense but you just sound like your trolling. Same goes for your other thread too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. I think he's trolling.
Riyal said:
Seriously? "Only" on a quad core 1.5ghz CPU for a smartphone? What are you gonna run on your phone that would require you more? Or do you just want your battery to drain more for no possible reasons? Some users even just underclock for the sake of saving battery.
If you ask me I buy this because of the features and the RAM not because of processor clock.
If you ever let me choose I would rather go for a 1ghz dual core processor with 4GB RAM than having a 2ghz quad core processor with 2GB RAM.
The only reason why I would want the Qualcomm S4 Pro processor is because of adreno 320.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What would be the purpose of 4GB of RAM in a smartphone are you running Photoshop or a VM? Where did this stigma that more cores is equivalent to less efficient power use. More asynchronous cores allow for more accurate scaling of processing power to needs, thus higher power efficiency because the CPU spends less time in higher power states.
REAVER117 said:
What would be the purpose of 4GB of RAM in a smartphone are you running Photoshop or a VM? Where did this stigma that mire cores is equivalent to less efficient power use. More asynchronous cores allow for more accurate scaling of processing power to needs, thus higher power efficiency because the CPU spends less time in higher power states.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Buddy android runs Dalvik VM and our GPU uses dedicated RAM for processing certain graphic tasks. So yes we are running a VM on our mobile phones.
Also with a proper monitoring app you could see for yourself which uses more and needs more resource here. whether processing or memory.
Didn't you even wonder why our phones consume almost 700mb RAM without even a single foreground application open? Yet it sits idle in a single core and remains in between 400mhz+ to 900mhz?
Also I didn't say that more cores consumes more power in my statement but still since each core requires power to run it should also consume more. Also I didn't mention anything about number of core I was talking about the clocks. Since the higher the clock requires more Amperes. Still underclocking your phone by 500mhz would prolly just save about 2% of your battery anyways.
you don't need higher cpu clock to get a pocket heater for this winter
My Optimus G has the same cpu an the thermal throttling is kikin in pretty fast. This 1.7Ghz S4pro will thermal throttle as fast or even faster, rendering numerical advantage meaningless.
I don't want to feed the troll but I also think dual core is good enough.
Riyal said:
Buddy android runs Dalvik VM and our GPU uses dedicated RAM for processing certain graphic tasks. So yes we are running a VM on our mobile phones.
Also with a proper monitoring app you could see for yourself which uses more and needs more resource here. whether processing or memory.
Didn't you even wonder why our phones consume almost 700mb RAM without even a single foreground application open? Yet it sits idle in a single core and remains in between 400mhz+ to 900mhz?
Also I didn't say that more cores consumes more power in my statement but still since each core requires power to run it should also consume more. Also I didn't mention anything about number of core I was talking about the clocks. Since the higher the clock requires more Amperes. Still underclocking your phone by 500mhz would prolly just save about 2% of your battery anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have yet to see my Xperia ZL have less than 800MB of free an extra 2GB would be a total waste. And you simply stated you'd rather have a dual than a quad, peak frequency means very little except for potential processing power. Just because your CPU is capable of a higher clock speed doesn't mean it will idle any higher. Likewise the only difference between a quad with a single utilized core and a dual with a single utilized core is the minute amount if extra leakage current for the quad.
I think you meant to say that higher frequencies may need more voltage, amperage has very little to do with CPU frequency scaling.
And obviously the memory overhead for a virtualized process i.e. Dalvik VM is not even in the same league as a system VM.
REAVER117 said:
I have yet to see my Xperia ZL have less than 800MB of free an extra 2GB would be a total waste. And you simply stated you'd rather have a dual than a quad, peak frequency means very little except for potential processing power. Just because your CPU is capable of a higher clock speed doesn't mean it will idle any higher. Likewise the only difference between a quad with a single utilized core and a dual with a single utilized core is the minute amount if extra leakage current for the quad.
I think you meant to say that higher frequencies may need more voltage, amperage has very little to do with CPU frequency scaling.
And obviously the memory overhead for a virtualized process i.e. Dalvik VM is not even in the same league as a system VM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Buddy that 800mb is without running any foreground applications other than either Settings app or the homescreen. Like I said try running some monitoring apps on the background and try using the browser then maybe try loading some sites with lots of javascript codes in it.
Or if you like try launching 4 types of angry birds and the 2 temple run games simultaneously without killing one of them and let's see if OOM doesn't kick in and kill any of them.
Regarding CPU cores please state something that requires a quad core processor. The smoothness of the UI your experiencing is because of the type of processor your phone is using "The Snapdragon S4 Pro" even if you disable all the extra cores in it you won't feel anything different unless of course you'll run some benchmark tools or video decoding stuffs in there.
And just FYI more cores doesn't mean greater processing power. It's more cores = more processes it can handle.
And on the CPU freq clocks who said t that amperes doesn't increase on each frequency table? Please take a look at qualcomm's document on their site regarding it's processors so you would know how they calculate it. Voltage is just used to provide more electricity to power up the processor but voltage alone won't make a processor active.
This discussion is going to the wrong way.
Thread closed.
hi
i am new but i cant find a way for see the firtst 1,5 ghz cores work....all cpu app i can find see me only work the last 4 core with 1,2 ghz...
please help me unlock the firt 4 core are everytime stopped thnx for help
Those kick in only when you are doing something "hard" in that time. Like benchmarking in background.
SoNic67 said:
Those kick in only when you are doing something "hard" in that time. Like benchmarking in background.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i try run all test and i dont see one time the big core work, they are stopped every time...( try pc mark but dont work he crash after 4k encoding video) with kernel auiditior i can active all 8 core...now they work everytime and i can set governor for each processor...
but other app like cpuz dont find the first processor they see only the last 4 core... ok maybe with bench i can see all cores work but is very hard find a way for check the correct work for governor and the phone processor work fine....
if u dont have root cpu app dont find any governor...or see only one processor...
Those are limitations of the apps themselves or your OS.
I have the official N (rooted with ElementalX) and CPU-Z sees all the cores.
Also there are never supposed to work all 8 in the same time, only a group/cluster of 4 at one time, it is not a straight-up 8 core CPU. They are not "equal" in respect of performance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_big.LITTLE
Different combinations of Governors and Schedulers produce different results.
PS: The newer Snapdragon 625, that is present in G5 Plus, is listed as a true 8 core: https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/processors/625
The 617 is a big.LITTLE octa-core, not a true 8-core CPU such as the 625, like @SoNic67 said. The 617 has one cluster running up to 1.5-1.6 GHz (depending on the kernel), and one cluster that generally runs from 500 MHz-1200 MHz.
The little cluster, or the 500-1200 MHz cluster, is fine for basic tasks, such as UI, scrolling, etc. However, in games, all cores will online (or at least that's the point). Some apps are not threaded for 8 cores and thus will not utilize, or need, 8 cores.
Also, in reality, the 4 "big" cores make very little difference in terms of performance. I did 2 benches in another thread, where Antutu came up 40K with 4 cores and 45k with 8 cores. Although this seems like a large performance decrease, without the big cores the phone was cool, still ran quick, and drained far less battery.
Finally, having 8 cores also can introduce performance deficits as well, especially if your hotplug is inefficient (there may be delays in turning on cores, resulting in UI jank). I thus recommend simply leaving them off- better battery, cooling, and still decent performance.
thx for support and continue OS is amazing gw.
negusp said:
The 617 is a big.LITTLE octa-core, not a true 8-core CPU such as the 625, like @SoNic67 said. The 617 has one cluster running up to 1.5-1.6 GHz (depending on the kernel), and one cluster that generally runs from 500 MHz-1200 MHz.
The little cluster, or the 500-1200 MHz cluster, is fine for basic tasks, such as UI, scrolling, etc. However, in games, all cores will online (or at least that's the point). Some apps are not threaded for 8 cores and thus will not utilize, or need, 8 cores.
Also, in reality, the 4 "big" cores make very little difference in terms of performance. I did 2 benches in another thread, where Antutu came up 40K with 4 cores and 45k with 8 cores. Although this seems like a large performance decrease, without the big cores the phone was cool, still ran quick, and drained far less battery.
Finally, having 8 cores also can introduce performance deficits as well, especially if your hotplug is inefficient (there may be delays in turning on cores, resulting in UI jank). I thus recommend simply leaving them off- better battery, cooling, and still decent performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600KThe latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900KAs mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.
kunalneo said:
Intel has always been a leader when it comes to gaming CPUs. But in the past year or so, AMD has pushed hard to give 'Team Blue' a tough competition, especially with its current line of Ryzen 5000 series processors. This does not mean that Intel is out of order; in fact, it still has some of the best gaming processors on the market at various price points. Earlier this year, the company launched its newest offering in the consumer space under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series. While it isn't a solid jump from its predecessor, we expect the company to finally move away from its 14nm architecture with its 12th-gen Alder Lake series launch later this year.
Let's take a look at some of the best Intel processors that you should buy for gaming:
Intel Core i5-11600KThe latest 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S series of desktop CPUs turned out to be a tad bit disappointing as Intel held back on its top-tier options, specifically the Core i9-11900K. However, the Core i5-11600K has proven to be one of the best Intel processors for gaming. Featuring six cores and 12-threads, it offers the best performance to value ratio. In fact, it is cheaper than AMD’s similarly configured Ryzen 5 5600X and manages to produce equally good performance numbers. It is still based on Intel’s aging 14nm process; thus, it isn’t very power efficient, but with added support for PCIe 4.0, you can take advantage of faster SSDs and new-gen GPUs for wider data bandwidth. If you don’t care about high-core count and want a solid CPU for playing games at 1440p or 4K resolutions, this should not disappoint.
Clock speeds: 3.9GHz - 4.9GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
125W TDP
~$272
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i9-10900KAs mentioned above, Intel’s latest top-of-the-line mainstream CPU under the 11th-gen Rocket Lake-S is not impressive. That’s because the Core i9-11900K cuts down on the total number of cores and threads compared to last year’s Core i9-10900K. For the sole reason, we recommend the Comet Lake-based Intel Core i9-10900K from last year as our recommendation of the best high-performance Intel gaming CPU. The arrival of AMD’s Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 processors has given Intel a run for its money, but we can assure you that the 10-core, 20-thread configuration on the 10900K is going to last you for years to come. Do note that it is very power-hungry, and we suggest investing in a more powerful cooler and power supply.
Clock speeds: 3.7GHz - 5.3GHz
10-Cores, 20 Threads
20MB L3 Cache
16 PCIe 3.0 lanes
95W TDP
$499
Buy from Amazon
Intel Core i5-11400If you are on a tight budget, then you should look at Intel’s new Core i5-11400. It is basically a more refined version of the 10400 from last year, an excellent budget CPU for gaming. One of the primary reasons for recommending this processor is that it doesn't have any solid competition from AMD apart from the two-year-old Ryzen 5 3600. Additionally, if you already have a GPU, you can go for the 11400F that offers equally good performance minus an integrated GPU. The CPU is also proven to perform great in single-threaded work, and with support for memory overclocking and tinkering with power limits, the chip is also great for enthusiasts. It is one of the few CPUs to come with a stock cooler, but if you plan to push its limits, we recommend a good third-party cooler.
Clock speeds: 2.6GHz - 4.4GHz
6-Cores, 12 Threads
12MB L3 Cache
20 PCIe 4.0 lanes
65W TDP
$182
Buy from Amazon
These are some of the best Intel processors available today for gamers. Before you head out and buy one, note that it isn't always wise to go for the highest core count or clock speeds. Higher clock speeds are usually good for simpler tasks, like gaming, while a higher core count usually helps you in accomplishing tasks that take a longer time, or for better multitasking. Considering that the GPU is responsible for gaming more than the processor, it is advised not to overspend on your processor rather save for a better GPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think for the money the i9 10850k is a better option than the 10900 as long as you're not concerned about pci gen 4
I am looking for user of a Core-i7 990x 5-6Ghz 24GB fastest RAM.
GTX470+GTX980ACX2.0 Overcloked
OCZ 240GByte PCI 3.0 SSD 2000MByte/s
Check AMD for my 2 other servers JimDijkstra86NL aKa Jimmy ;-D
I know shes old but she was gold I7-2600k. Still using mine OC'd from day1 with a H70. daily 4.5Ghz 24/7 bought right after Ivy Bridge release for price reasons. Updated my graphic to 1060 6g and running it in only 2 lanes with Sandy and have yet to have issues in games. Well depending on what i set Horizon 5 to it will be crushed. H5 is very demanding GPU wise.
The best menu for CPU means fastest chip, which speed up your device. Now a days there are many best intel processors for gaming.
For intel series I would recommend 12th Gen 12400 for gaming under Budget
Really would like to have 1 that OC'd like Sandy u didn't hardly need to do much of anything to hit 4.5,4.6. Slap good ram in and a good water cooler and rock and roll time
Why are there no i7s on this list? A xx700 has plenty of power. I would argue an i9 is way overkill for most gamers.
"Best" is also a subjective term. Ideally, you want a combination of CPU, motherboard, RAM, and GPU where each compliments the other. If you're running a 3080 Ti on an i5, you're probably not going to get the maximum performance out of the GPU. This is called "bottlenecking".
ALL Intel CPUs were very good performers once starting with the first i5/i7. I still see people pushing hex-core Westmere-EP Xeons like X5672 to 4 GHz with surprising results for an 11-year-old CPU!
The best processor for gaming would be Intel Core i5 12600K.
The Core i5 12600K is the standout processor for gamers because it not only offers great gaming performance across the board, but it does so at a price point that isn't going to reduce you to tears. It not only beats the similarly priced 5600X in pretty much every game, but it outperforms the $750 Ryzen 9 5950X in plenty of tests too. That it soundly beats the Core i9 11900K is just the icing on the cake. Not bad for a $320 mid-range chip.