Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Avira
Avira SafeThings WiFi Router
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Windows_Security" data-source="post: 801082" data-attributes="member: 50782"><p>Cores versus clock frequency.</p><p></p><p>I swapped the motherboard of my old Windows 7 desktop Pentium dual core (with 5GHz mobo throughput) with an old I7 920 (with 4.8 GHz mobo throughput) having nearly same Passmark CPU benchmark. . It was faster swapping mobo than installing Windows 7 completely for an older relative who had problems getting used to Windows 10.</p><p></p><p>Because I have a silent PC-case (isolated) and old i7-920 uses a lot more energy and produces a lot more heat, I reduced the clock frequency a little and added a 120mm fan (my PC case was fan less except for the fan which was build in the power unit) to reduce the heat of CPU.</p><p></p><p>To my surprise the startup of Chrome felt faster. Testing it with AppTimer indeed showed the old i7 is faster in practice. The i7 was 15% faster than the Pentium (CPU benchmark), but with reduced clock frequency it should be nearly the same.</p><p></p><p>The benefit of being able to process tasks in parallel with low to CPU load has more practical advantage because 90% of the time we are not using 100% of CPU capacity. So my guess is that more cores/threads is beneficial when CPU capacity is not utilized to the max (compared to CPU with less cores and simular CPU benchmark).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Windows_Security, post: 801082, member: 50782"] Cores versus clock frequency. I swapped the motherboard of my old Windows 7 desktop Pentium dual core (with 5GHz mobo throughput) with an old I7 920 (with 4.8 GHz mobo throughput) having nearly same Passmark CPU benchmark. . It was faster swapping mobo than installing Windows 7 completely for an older relative who had problems getting used to Windows 10. Because I have a silent PC-case (isolated) and old i7-920 uses a lot more energy and produces a lot more heat, I reduced the clock frequency a little and added a 120mm fan (my PC case was fan less except for the fan which was build in the power unit) to reduce the heat of CPU. To my surprise the startup of Chrome felt faster. Testing it with AppTimer indeed showed the old i7 is faster in practice. The i7 was 15% faster than the Pentium (CPU benchmark), but with reduced clock frequency it should be nearly the same. The benefit of being able to process tasks in parallel with low to CPU load has more practical advantage because 90% of the time we are not using 100% of CPU capacity. So my guess is that more cores/threads is beneficial when CPU capacity is not utilized to the max (compared to CPU with less cores and simular CPU benchmark). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top