When choosing a new processor, it is inevitable to assess its specifications, and especially the number of cores and process threads and the maximum speed at which they are capable of operating. In desktop CPUs, speed usually prevails over the number of cores , but in server and workstation processors it is just the other way around, the number of cores prevails but they have somewhat lower speeds. What is ultimately better?
In the current market and if your budget allows it, you can choose options from only two-core processors to 64 options, so it really won’t be for options. The problem is that as a general rule increasing the number of cores in a processor also increases its price, and a lot. However, between two processors with the same cores and different speeds, there may be no difference in price (or even the fastest being cheaper) because many other factors come into play, such as architecture or platform, for example.
More cores but slow or fewer cores but fast
So, what we are going to do next is to exemplify the situation in a virtual way, that is, imagine two processors that are of the same brand and use the same architecture, but one has a very fast single core while the other has two cores but slower (to put the numbers, imagine a processor with a 5 GHz core and another with two 2.5 GHz cores). What would be a better option?
The answer is, as always, it depends. In this case it depends on the software and more specifically on the application, game or benchmark that we are running and how it behaves with the instructions and the processor cycles. For example, in an application that is only capable of running with one core in parallel it would be useless to have two cores and therefore the fast processor would have much better performance.
Now, if we are facing an application that is capable of parallelizing two tasks simultaneously, then the contest will be equal (roughly), and it will be because the speed of the one-core processor is just double that of the processor that has double of nuclei, equalizing the contest.
The reality is quite different, because we neither have 5 GHz single-core processors nor do we have 2.5 GHz two-core variants, but rather the comparisons are between, for example, 4 cores and 8 threads at 4.4 GHz and 6 cores with 12 threads at 4.2 GHz, where obviously the hexacore processor will perform better most of the time because today almost all software is capable of parallelizing 12 simultaneous tasks.
Based on usage, should you buy a faster CPU or more cores?
Indeed and as always, whether one CPU or another is worth it will depend on the use you are going to give it. For example, if the main use that you are going to do is rendering in 3D then you are interested in having a processor with the largest number of process threads possible even if they are slower, since it will be able to execute a greater number of tasks simultaneously resulting in a faster rendering.
Now, if the use that you are going to give to your CPU is for example to surf the Internet and little else, then you do not need so many cores because they will not be used and what will be better for you is a processor with less quantity but greater speed.
At this point you will surely be wondering if more cores are better for gaming or if they are faster, and it is that in the past there was the urban legend that games did not take advantage of the quad-core processors of that time. The reality is that in modern games that was far behind and the vast majority are able to take advantage of as many threads as the processor has available, so that, after all, you will almost always find the best option in a processor with a higher number of cores / threads because it will be able to execute more tasks in less time.
Obviously there are many other factors to take into account when choosing one or the other processor and our explanation has been quite crude, but if you take into account the theoretical empirical values that we have explained to you, the answer is quite clear: if you can afford it , more cores will give you better performance .
