Gadgetory

so you've already read the title do twice as many cores actually yield twice the performance we're going to run some CPU synthetics as well as some gaming benchmarks to test this hypothesis so first let me run through the test bench that we'll be using to run both of these scenarios first up we have an Intel i5 4690k overclocked to 4.6 gigahertz yes that was as high as I could get it without seeing severe CPU temperature hikes that was it was a little scary once we got to 4.7 I didn't regard it as stable so we went back down to 4.6 and that's pretty much where it's gonna stay from here on out I have snapchat we have an azrog z97 extreme for LGA 1150 motherboard as well as 8 gigabytes and - 4 gigabyte variants of kingston hyperx ddr3 clocked at 1866 megahertz now you probably expected me to have a pentium g 32:58 lying around to mimic the 2 core cpu that we'll be using on our other tests but what I have done instead is use the exact same 4690k and just turned off two of those cores to mimic to an extent the G 32:58 so the overclock remain the same and of course everything else in the test bench has remained the same but the difference there is going to be only two cores running at any given time versus 4 so what I did first was I ran the benchmarks with all 4 cores running at 4.6 gigahertz apiece and so these are the results for the synthetic CPU tests that we found first up is Cinebench and our quad-core CPU achieved a score of 583 now 4.6 gigahertz this might seem a little low but that's because we had a screen reporter running during the entire time that we were running both of our sets of CPU synthetic tests so these scores are a little suppressed they'll actually be a bit higher I think with 4.6 eager Hertz and no screen recorder running we achieved a score 670 so 100 of those higher than what we achieved in this one is actually what you would you in a C if you like this overclock to this extent now for Geekbench 3 which was the other CPU synthetic test that we ran we achieved a single core score of 41 36 and a multi-core score of 13 to 36 those are the CPU synthetic tests for our quad core now let's hop on over to our dual core and see how those scores compared to those of the quad core if you're wondering how I was able to turn off to Poor's my CPU it's very simple go ahead and restart your computer push f2 or whatever button corresponds to pushing your system into its BIOS it depends on your motherboard you can see your manual if you're curious about that and then for me particularly I'd hop on over to advanced settings click on the CPU tab and then change how many cores are running from 4 to 2 or all the two in my case it's really that simple and then restart your computer and you're good as gold so once booted into our operating system once again but this time with only two cores activated we ran both CPU synthetic tests once again with the screen recorder running now obviously only having a dual core in this case and using the screen recorder at the same time will affect performance a bit more than it would with a quad-core CPU just because you can't multitask as much with only two physical cores so the scores are probably a little bit biased towards the quad-core in this case however I will show you in the geek bench test that things weren't as skewed towards the quad core CPU as you might expect so first up is Cinebench let's go ahead and get that out of the way it took so long for cinnamon to finish with only two of those little yellow squares rendering images at the same time I'm serious it probably took about three minutes for all these run and we're at 4.6 gigahertz here this is what most people can get their Pentium G 32:58 stew and our cinnamon score overall was not very promising we only achieve a score of 256 CP which is a little under half of what we achieved with our quad core CPU at 583 but let's move on to geek bench because geek bench is going to show us something special here geek bench not only measures as a multi-core performance of our CP but also the single core performance and if our theory is true about single core performance and it being the exact same CPU it's not really a theory it's kind of very proven our single core score should be nearly identical and it was it was identical to our quad core CPU it was close enough it was 40 40 and dual cores case and it was 41 36 and the quad core case so you could argue that there are a few little minor processes in there that might require more than one core that the single core benchmark takes advantage of but for the most part we can say that the screen recording aspect of running our CPU synthetics hasn't affected our dual core as much as we might have anticipated it to being that it only has two cores and it's going to struggle to run multiple tasks any time now when things start to changes our multi-core scores here so what remember a quad core scored 13 236 but our dual core scored 70 100 so actually a little over half of what our multi-core score was for our quad core synthetic test so you can pretty much say here that our performance was almost literally cut in half in terms of these two specific CPU synthetic tests next up with the gaming benchmarks I know these are the things that you guys actually care about so I'm not going to talk through each one of these individually like I usually do I'm going to show them all to you and let you guys decide which of these two CPU variants either the G 32:58 mimic or the 4690k mimic is more ideal for what you expect to get frame per second wise out of the games that you choose play here the graphs so obviously the i5 one but it's the margins by which the i5 one in three of the four cases GTA 5 being the exclusion here that have me second-guessing the viability of an i-5 for gaming you see if you could purchase a G 32:58 in overclock into four point six gigahertz and get somewhere around what we achieve for our dual core experiences here in games is it really worth paying any extra money I mean we're talking 100 to 200 dollars of extra dough for an unlocked I 5 processor when you're still getting around 60fps and most of these games with just a dual-core so I get sets the question that will be left unanswered in this video is it really worth the extra 100 to 200 dollars that's a lot of dough to our books is a lot of dough for a lot of people to get an i5 when you're really only getting about 20 to 30 percent additional frame rates in most of these games GTA 5 of course being exception once again just because GTA 5 is very CPU intensive the more coins you throw GTA 5 for the most part the more FPS you're going to get marginally but for these other games here for a dying light for black ops 3 and for dirt rally pretty much any racing game you can think of it really kind of representative all live games is it worth the extra money let me know in the comments below if you're a video editor if you render a lot of things or I don't know edit photos music stuff like that obviously the i-5 is going to be for you and I would prefer you to get an i-5 because a dual core really isn't going to keep up as much with those processes but if you're just a gamer g32 58 anyone anyone is it worth it is it not be sure to subscribe to us we haven't already like the video if you like the benchmarks and what you saw in this video dislike if you didn't let me know what you'd like to see improved in future videos this is science studio thanks for learning with us