It matters if youre comparing same cpu architecture and same number of cores, otherwise it doesnt matter.

It depends on how you 💩 in toilet.

@@surge5240 i read this while taking a sht lol

So, did not watch the video yet, but I suppose "it depends on what you do with your PC", lol. Depends on how multi-threaded the specific thing you're using your PC for is. For example Maya and 3ds Max are multithreaded but not very well still (even in 2018 yeah), so single core performance matters for viewport performance. ARMA3 servers are also poorly multithreaded, so single core clock speed is important there as well. ETC.

It was a joke...

Drop joke in comments: check!

@@lurts9820 how much $ in the check?

I *drop* a like on this one

the frequency that the actual PC itself drops is actually a lot higher when linus touches it.

Speaking of dropping: Massdrop! Massdrop makes products with input from their members and give them a place to connect, learn and shop with people who share their interests

Multipeople processing

So correct. Its all evolution. They created one simple machine and keep enhancing it every year :)

Cpu is my Dad

The evolution of the CPU is also amazing.

@@creative2z then who created us?

My dad does, that's why his 2 seat pickup truck has 13 cupholders

of course, it has to have at least 2 out front, max 4. Done. If more, than you're missing out on something else.

How the hell im gonna live my life now that I have none on my car :

I think Doug DeMuro does.

My entire car is a cupholder

Not many people care

*Curse in Meltdown*

Rogeh It does, there’s nothing wrong with that statement.

SonicSP he wasn’t rebutting you. He was referencing the spectre virus, which you should check out also on this channel

@@OfficialJervin, Spectre is a vulnerability not a virus.

5THz

If it is 32bit then it could be great for old games/programs though I doubt there will be a large market for it without support for the old PCI and AGP slots.

gnihton 5THZ 150 gigawatt tdp

So the 10Ghz pentium4's they talked about 14 years ago? Cant run any hotter than their current chips

@@tomstech4390 10? i swear intel was claiming we'd get to 20 ghz cpu's.

Heh, I had a 133 Mhz Pentium, and somehow managed to make it run a game designed to be run at least by a Pentium II, so what ended up happening was that the game ran, but proportionally slowed down. It wasnt a problem as long as I was racing against the AI, but the third race was against the clock, which, unlike the game, ran at normal speed. It was impossible.

Reminds me of the moment when i tried to run a p3 small pc game on my p1 pc and it loaded completely but it was rendering the 16 bit hi rez graphics in 256 colors frame per minute. Later, I was playing with disk cleanup utility from win95 on the same pc and deleted the whole windows folder. Got a really nice message on restart.

another way to say "im old"

Used to have a 266 MHz CPU which I could switch to 166 MHz using the turbo button. And Win95 on a 2GB HDD. 😅

@@Ultrajuiced Rip turbo button and firewire

this comment is very under liked

Nice

That's some interesting history! The first time I noticed differing performance despite clock rate differences was when I had an AMD Sempron 1.75GHz overclocked at 2GHz beating my friends 2.6GHz (might have been 2.4 or 2.5) Intel Celeron. But then the Core2Duos came out and I think a 2.4GHz dual core was equivalent to my new AMD Athlon 3GHz dual core... never really looked into why and just generally assumed intel had the better technology or implementation at that point, something that seemed to be the case up until Ryzen I believe. Stuck with intel and nvidia ever since and never been disappointed, the i7 13700K I have now is undervolted by 0.200 and underclocked and never uses more than 20% in games it's crazy, wish graphics cards were that far ahead

If you think this then you didnt pay attention in your classes

@@penguin1714 dude the only classes I ever paid attention to were computer related and programming and I am a peogrammer now lol

Except after 5 minutes you just heared all the terms and after the lecture you could draft a simple architecture if you payed attention.

@@MaEtUgR you guys don't get it, xD besides being the diagrams, it was actually almost everything.

yes, almost all terms were mentioned which doesn't give you any deeper insight. You're probably just joking 😃 I like the video, it's very well explained but the scope is (luckily) not comparable to any lectures about the topic I attended.

technically right because the CPU does 12 billion instruction cycles per seconds, but completely misleading

they do that on purpose for tech illiterate people - it's an oversimplification, but it can be said in five seconds

@@kuhluhOG not technically correct lol

I've seen someone advertise a 4 core CPU with 8 core integrated GPU as a 12 core CPU. I was upset a bit.

if it says 12GHz with a single core then it should be fine

Apple users disagree.

@@andredeketeleastutecomplex well you were clearly drawn to large usernames

LUL

Well, when overclocked the FX CPUs weren't much higher clocked than Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge, especially Sandy.

@@badass6300 no but they sucked big time against the intel counterparts with the same clockspeeds

@@problemschueler Well in comparison they were weaker, but also a lot cheaper. You'd get 25-70% more performance on a i5 3570k compared to a fx 4300, but the fx 4300 was 80$ while the i5 3570k was 240$, so 1.25x - 1.7x more performance for 3.0x the price. The fx 4300 had 500 million transistors for all 4 cores/2 modules, the i5 3570k had 1.3 billion transistors for all 4 cores. 2.6x more transistors for up to 1.7x better performance, I'd say quite good performance per transistor. And up until 2016-2017 the FX CPUs could play pretty much 99.99% of the games 60fps+, rare exceptions were the ones that even intel CPUs were struggling. So they were indeed weaker in comparison but good enough. The problem of the FX CPUs is that they went with many small cores, if the highest core count was 6 cores/3 modules, but the cores were 30-33% bigger with probably 5-10% lower clock speeds, it would have been much better and would have costed about the same since the die size would be consistent.

@@badass6300 that 80$ is easly 200+ these days because it's soo shit that most people probably changed their CPU by now while Intel users are still waiting for performance gains worth the money. Also meanwhile electricity wasn't free and it might look like in reality Intel indeed WAS a better choice

@@badass6300 and you are comparing fx 4300 to Ivy Bridge (3rd gen) unlocked i5 ao your argument is even more invalid. AMD during FX era was just shite. Deal with it. In the long run Intel was MUCH better performing, cooler, pretty much didn't use any power comparing to the arc furnace of team red and like I said: actually looking today was even a cheaper option! Today tho I pick Ryzen 9/10 times

My old Dell OptiPlex has a Pentium 4, 3GHz (technically 3.06GHz) CPU. For such an old computer with a 1 core processor, it's actually lightning quick, and I have a gaming laptop with a 2.6GHz 6 core CPU. I can admit that the Pentium 4 cannot multitask very well. 😅

You missed the point of the video.

should have gone with a core 2 duo instead lol, better than both at any clock speed

I made an even worse mistake, a Celeron

I was suprised they sold Pentium 4 in 2008 at that time it was a really outdated CPU

My 1st CPU! And best electronic experience ever..., thanks Woz

Visual6502.org

Is this the commodore 64 CPU?

The C64 CPU have some custom features, but the instruction set is the same.

Also processor cache. Bigger is better.

How do I know the IPCs of a CPU, tho?

@@Deses try searching it?

@@bueb8674 have you? If I look for the IPCs of my current cpu, a 4670K, the first resulta are forum posts asking about the performance and how much better IPC Intel has over an AMD FX, a cpu boss comparison and not much else, really.

@@Deses you clock both your 4670k and the amd fx at the same mhz and benchmark them at 1 core,higher number has more IPC.

@@ppsarrakis That's right. Since my original post I did some more research and that was the preferred method to find out, yet, IPC varies depending on the workload, so it's not a static number... Anyway, the problem with that method is that you have to own both CPUs to run the tests, and most people want to know before purchasing so they can choose better. :p

@ateb3 that it is but it is still a security exploit because of just how it works. Everything has to be unencrypted to work with as data on the CPU execution cores so they get to be so but doing so means unencrytped data. It is a security exploit that can take that unencrypted data out of the cache before being caught by the checking math built into the chip. So it is a good thing for consumers who do not have to worry about being hardware security aware but a bad thing if your computer is a possible target of attack. The "worst" versions are most able to happen on servers due to admin control being able to be given to off site clients by default for ICMP.

now to counter my own point it also means that 1 they have the username and password for the ICMP login 2 they can use a ICMP login which means they are on the LAN already or VLAN anyhow and then 3 you are already screwed by that point as in the event they have access to the ICMP login of one computer they most likely have it to more than one to which your sever(s) are screwed due to it being better to just install something that looks harmless onto the system and does minimal traffic to steal the info instead of a hardware exploit to gather them all slowly

it mgiht be stil an security exploit but it stil has fuck all to do with wehat the video is about

Duh, you can just download them tho.

It’s all fun and games until a gamer pirates ram

When you're comparing different processors using the same architecture, yeah. But when comparing an AMD and an Intel CPU? Clock speed is irrelevant.

@@phazonclash both amd and intel are x86-64 and thus both have the same instruction set, and clock speeds always matter, along with IPC, CPI and IC

@@badass6300 here's a video you should definitely watch kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mLx9nsVyqL-wd2w.html

overclocking and cooling upgrade is trying to make whatever run better at the lowest possible temp., comparing clockspeeds of different architectures mindlessly is another thing.. eg: i have a quad core , 1.6 ghz i5 8th gen laptop variant with hyper threading that can turbo upto 3.4 ghz and an amd fx that runs 3.6 ghz stock , thatd , if i try to overclock on air would easily hit 4 ghz at the very least.. i know the i5 is faster. even if its a low power laptop version.

@John Identical architectures, form the same version with the same microcode. But must not be the same CPU.

Eastyy English please

yes, but they are already working and about to launch something with IPC gains, ryzen 3 coming in 2019.

Yes and no. The IPC of Zen+ CPUs (Ryzen 2000 series) is virtually the same as the current Intel CPUs (~3% slower if I remember correctly). Where AMD falls short compared to Intel is pretty much clock speed only (and a bit of latency because of CCX-to-CCX communication). So IPC is not really the issue with Ryzen, as I said, it's almost the same as Intel. The issue is really clock speed and latency. To get better single core performance than Intel, AMD need to EITHER increase clock speed, or increase IPC, or do both. You can be almost 100% sure they'll try to do both and increase both IPC and clock speed. Rumor has it Zen 2 CPUs will have clock speeds of 4.7 Ghz or better and ~15% better IPC compared to Zen. This puts it on par or slightly better in single core performance compared to i9 9900k and MUCH better in multi-core performance. Not to mention it's going to be HELL OF A LOT easier to cool because it's built on the 7nm node, not a mini furnace like 9900k which is basically a factory overclocked CPU.

@@bgtubber you are wrong, it is zen that is 3% slower than zen+ cpu's. zen+ cpu's are still about 7-10% behind current intel CPU's in IPC.

​@@shawnpitman876 You are thinking about gaming where you'd be right, Intel is 10-15% faster at same clocks there. I'm talking productivity where the IPC of Ryzen is basically the same as Intel (and even beats it in some tests). Check the article about this over at Techspot: www.techspot.com/article/1616-4ghz-ryzen-2nd-gen-vs-core-8th-gen/

Should have had 1 controller per "core" instead of 1 per 2

@@wangkevin3431 Well. It had 4 instruction decoders per pair of cores. So effectively 2 per core, meanwhile intel had 3 decoders per core. so when the cpu was fully loaded it started to get bottlenecked waiting for instructions. however this impacted the performance a minor amount. Next was the prediction. they finally built a branch instruction predictor on par with intel's the down side was the length it took for instructions to get all the way through the cpu, the 'pipeline' was a bit longer. see cpu's can put instruction after instruction into the 'pipeline' like linus said on a assembly line. the issue is cpu's do many different things, so the assembly line needs to be 'ready' for the next instruction to be executed. As in the predictor needs to guess the correct next instruction + data to pull to add to the pipeline. If it doesn't ... the cpu has to wait for the pipeline to basically finish and find out from the previous command what it needs. For example, data sets and server stuff can be predicted keeping the cpu busy however, user input, i.e. games, can *not* be predicted as easily thus again the cpu is sitting around waiting for things to figure out what to do and get fed data. Next is yes, the shared floating point unit that gets overwhelmed when both cores are trying to use it. this shouldn't be an issue but it was because of windows. Back in the day you could and had to manually patch windows to treat the fx chip like a intel chip with hyperthreading. That fixed windows scheduling two heavy tasks 'next' to each other on the same shared resources chip. So with that patched, windows would schedule programs like an Intel chip and space out the programs first using every even core (0,2,4,6) then every odd core. That got a lot of general performance back relieving stress on both the decoders and floating point. Finally, the biggest issue was the cache. the FX's L2+ cache was slower then intel's. So if the working data set and instructions can't be kept in L0 or L1 ... then the CPU again was waiting for data from L2 or L3 or L4. L3/4 is the RAM depending on if the cpu had a L3 on die cache as well or not. Each level is bigger and includes more cores with the highest level cache in the cpu being accessible by all the cores, it's generally how they share data with each other. So finally with the cpu waiting all the time for data and the most important subsystem it has to wait on being slower than the competitors ... the FX (Bulldozer) was pretty garbage from an engineering standpoint. For users looking for single threaded performance, intel chips at the time could perform, clock for clock, near 2x the instructions on average. That is to say a 4ghz amd core performed as well as a intel 2ghz core; in the worst case. average would be closer to 4ghz amd ~~ 3ghz intel. And in workloads where the amd's shortcomings didn't gimp it ... it was only 10-20%slower clock for clock while you had twice as many cores for much cheaper. ... surprisingly similar to how it currently is except for a important difference; AMD caught up and Rysen and Threadripper don't have huge crippling flaws. And amd is maybe ~5% behind clock for clock while they have twice the cores for half the price.

@@agenticex ah ic thanks for the info

You obviously haven’t used a laptop with a Celeron processor or a processor that starts with a letter and has 4 digits after it. They still make cheap CPUs that are terrible and still would be terrible with a 8 GHz OC.

i'm still running an AMD FX-6100 overclocked to 4,2Ghz with an aio water cooler and it's stable with games running up to 60 Fps so it's not so bad and it's been running for about 5 years

Do you watch 8-bit guy?

csgo is more cpu heavy than your typical AAA game who rely more on gpu

@@soniablanche5672 typical AAA game? lol don't tell me that your pc can only run potato games lul

That is a good question, I have been in IT work (professional Nerd here haha) for over 6 years and I can definitely say there is no easy way James. There are so many pieces of it that the nuances get lost as it were. My suggestion is to research different architectures of Intel (they make amazing processors, no need to use others really) and see what the nuances of them are. You could also see some real world applications of different architectures of them as what it actually ends up doing means more then just what the research says. One more piece to remember though, assuming your clock speed does pipe well at times, is that your bus speed on your MB is *normally* what is the slowest component (assuming decent HW). If you have a local build, CPU-Z will show all this bus info. Hope this helps! LMK if you find any other info to help.

It's a monitor stand, and how many regular consumers do you know who have bought one? It's not designed for a basic consumer like you or me; the Mac Pro and the Pro Display XDR and accessories are designed either for enthusiasts or actual professionals who do things like KZfaq full time and need the processing power built into a single machine.

i5's in big modern games like Star Citizen cant keep up. So it does matter if games program to push or use the entire chip.

Slumpdog like I said, it depends on how it meets your needs. Most mainstream and consoles adapted games run equally fine on a top end i5 for a few hundred less. Me personally, I edit a lot of photos and the occasional video with some games on the side, so I use an i7 for now, and the base model i9 when I need to upgrade.

Actually electric vehicle tows really well And don't forget that when it comes to bugatti it's still an 8 liter 16 cylinder quad turbo 1500 bhp fucking drain for fuel (easly 1k+ torques) I'd compare it more to a Japanese cars. Huge power high revving, but almost 0 torque (like motorbikes)

@@GewelReal Well torque isn't really a meaningful spec

@@matthewprather189 torque means how fast you can accelerate with sufficent grip Power means how fast you can go (or the other way around - power means what speed you can reach and torque means how fast you can reach that speed)

they still wouldnt if Intel had their way 4 core 4 thread now because of spectre and well no reason to increase core count. AMD woke the blue giant we will soon see in the next 5 years or so if it has had a real affect or will Intel just continue as they always have.

Syed SherShah that’s a very old clip. That was when they just moved.

LOOOOOL

*surprised pickachu meme*

Ryan Reynolds yea.

Imagine if there were people who didn't know this lol

Dude this is the 3rd tech video I've seen you on in the last 15-20 minutes.

Commenting as a blue tick wanker is good advertisement

Yeah you're right.I overclocked my Core2duo from 2.5 to 4ghz and it pretty much doubled it's cinebench score and made games like doom and GTA V playable.

@@Tomboo Not advertising, I just saw his comments on some 2200g reviews and now here.

for real the most important Ghz number is the one that cancel your bottleneck (cpu), is the only way you can see like... double performance by just modify a single number, even if it is only +200/300 mhz, if with that number the bottleneck disappear.. voalá 30%+ performance appear

Bulldozer - the one that got Bulldozered

IKR

Techquickie is for people who arent too tech savvy.

Then lets comment on it

he LITERALLY answered the question and said that he would go in detail after the first 40 seconds absolutely pointless comment, or i'm guessing you didn't even watch it

Welp, we literally had almost everything in this video in q1 of this school year so it's a pretty good video. Explaining everything really clear

Don’t worry, the i9 is just a rebrand of the i7 so they can increase the price.

i9 isn't worth it for most people. Don't worry.

i9 has existed for a bit now. You're probably thinking of 9th gen

If you want an extra room heater get the new i9

@@QuincyIsCrispy i9 has existed in mainstream since 9th gen. So they have existed for the same amount of time....?

@@morthim You're kidding, right? Look, if you can not read, then please do not bother to answer.

@@Lucian_Andries if you did know the answer and wanted to make a sarcastic comment. you should make that clear in the comment. dont go and be negative to someone who made a good answer to your question

@@gamingwithegoon Did you pay attention of what I actually wrote? Or you just wanted to make a "sarcastic comment"? I know what HT and SMT is and their difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wrote the question very clear, it's not my fault you can't read. :(

@@gamingwithegoon thanks. a fair portion of the tech community are fairly demeaning like that. i'm not sure why someone would go to an entry video on an educational topic, make a loosely related response, and then respond with hostility when clarification is offered; but it happens. i rewatched the video to see if hyperthreading was even brought up. it wasn't. idk what the guy was motivated by but he was posting on a video unrelated to one of the topics he brought up. if you understand a thing, and aren't using the videos as teaching material for yourself or others, why question in a non-time-sensitive field? i deleted the original response. if the person's question was disingenuous, then it may lead others into greater confusion through introducing new topics. if the question was sincere, and my explanation was confusing and inadequate, it similarly bears deleting. besides, his grammar in his seccond response is unintelligible to me. so it may be the case that my dialect is unintelligble to him and perhaps more generally, those who are struggling with this particular problem. gaming with egoon, you have my appreciation all the same. keep being awesome and you can be sure good things will come.

@@morthim Does nobody know how to read anymore, nowadays??! :O I asked what's the difference between IPC and HT(SMT for AMD). I DID NOT ask what is the difference between HT and SMT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Pay attention or learn to read, don't shit on me for your idiocy! :( *EDIT:* Yes, it was a very beautiful explanation, props to you! But it wasn't what I asked. And if you pay attention, you would see I've written it very good as well. There is nothing confusing about it, unless you don't pay attention, or the other thing... Even a blind man could understand it... I even added quotation marks, to make the words stand out more... Added some more spaces to eliminate confusion... But you guys are worse than 5 year olds! :(( By the way, you misspelled HT and SMT in that beautiful explanation... :p

Instructions per cylce (IPC) is what really matters, but it is rather complicated to calculate it precisely, and it doesn't take into account what kind of program you are running, so a cpu with good IPC may be really fast at calculating mathematical formulas and stuff, but it may be really awful with video or other kind of stuff. So that is why we have benchmarks today, benchmarks allow you to have an estimative of how your cpu behaves in the context you want to use it. The thing is that benchmarks are also not perfect, because a cpu manufacturer, like AMD or Intel, could just create a CPU really good at running a handful of the most famous benchmarks and suck at other things ( although I don't think this happens today), so thats why people like Linus, have test everything in different setups and different benchmarks before posting a review. Edit: actually is IPC not CPI, thanks for correcting me.

It's part of the equation pretty much. Clock speed * IPC * stalls * number of cores

Times the CPU is waiting for data to come from the memory, or picked the wrong branch on a conditional branch, or ran a weirdass instruction that locks the CPU for a few cycles, or was unable to fill all the pipelines. It was pretty much the thing that made the pentium 4 CPU be slower than the atlhon. It had a BIG pipeline, and on every branch prediction fail, it had to wait 40 cycles, while an atlhon had to wait only 20.

That's indeed the best idea. Otherwise you will be trying to simulate what the program need in your head and that's quite messy.

Linus woud say: depends

Software optimisation > raw hardware power

@@mariozenarju6461 Always. Look at consoles. Impressive to see what the PS4 is able to handle.

@@Koeras16 Heard of Android-x86? Now that's a beast

It depends a lot on what you are doing, and again, depends on how much your CPU can do in one cycle. Generally speaking, more cores doesn't affect much the performance, because most things are still being programmed to use only one core, but higher clock not necessarily means that it will be better, to really compare 2 different CPU's you should see benchmarks of each one and decide which one has a better performance in the tasks you are going to use it, there is no easy way to compare CPU.

Did you watch the video? He mentions overclocking

nothing u idiot hes just talking about it, calm down.

sound one ain't watch the video lol

​@Don't Tread On Me Also an fx8320 can be overclocked to 9590 speeds (4.7Ghz all core) for £100 while a 1500x was £140 Not to mention you'll get more done on an fx8320 in 2012 than you will by waiting for another 5 years and buying a 1500x. Things have to be taken into perspective. Clock speeds dont matter IPC doesnt matter Cores dont matter They only matter when configured together in... IPC*clocks*cores/scaling/(amdahls law)

I'm pretty sure Raghavendra Singh was just joking....

@@pangkan270 yeah i was

I think you will be interested in this video. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iL-PZcp20dqXg3U.html

The Cell was an incredible chip but tough to program for. The only one's who ever really mastered it was Naughty Dog on The PS3