Does the i7-920 have four or eight cores?

Wouldn't It still be considered a QUAD core? the threads do not count as actual cores. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the matter will chime in. I am interested to know myself.

 

It's a quad core CPU - just like the 970 and higher procs are NOT called 12 core CPUs even though they appear to be capable of executing 12 simultaneous threads. In fact, you can only expect 20-30% the performance of an actual core from hyperthreading on applications that can actually use them.

 

I'm not an expert but here's my understanding: It's a quad core CPU because there's 4 physical cores but HT makes the OS send 2 sets of instructions to each core, so applications recognise 8 threads in total. It's not the same thing as a true 8 core CPU because when two threads are running on a single core, the number of execution units, cache, etc. are split between those threads.

Here's an analogy: a true 8 core CPU is like having 8 workers and a 4 core CPU with HT is like having 4 workers but giving them two things to do at the same time. You're not going to get double the productivity from the 4 workers but if they're good at multitasking then you might get a 10-20% increase in total productivity.

 

physically it's a quad core, but since it has 8 threads so technically it can perform just like 8 core CPU..
based from threads (from other forum) and articles I read.. it's still considered as quad core CPU..
but, I'm not expert on this

 

As I imagine it, (and "imagine" is exactly the word most appropriate), there are 4 discreet cores in the i7-920. However there is redundancy in many of the logic circuits. When there is excess data to be processed, the main core is tasked to shunt some of it to the duplicate circuits.

Perhaps picture something like some of the cars stuck in traffic on the same highway, being allowed to pass on the shoulder of the road. (Best analog I could come up with ).

 

Well, this is only my opinion...(I have to say that )
I build computers , but I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to give my 2 cents based on different cores and threads and such .....I do know this ..a quad core cannot he compared to an 8core based on how many threads and such ...because qhen dealing with an 8 core processor....dont they operate at a higher speed because of all of the threads that they can multiply Into?????Of a quad core can be considered an 8 core because of the quality and separate threads I guess that they can operate with ..it still wouldnt be equivalent to what the actual 8 core can dish out right???? Or is it just me ??

 

Threading is intended to avoid WAITING a core. The tread runs until:

• an I/O event occurs
• the tread timeslice expires

When thread A goes to 'wait', thread B runs to keep the core active.

HT extends process threads into the kernel space to allow the above to work efficiently.

SO: a quad CORE processor with HT will support 2x4=8 concurrent HT.

 

I still run this CPU in my 9yo PC.

Thinking upgrading it to i5-8400, leaving r290 until GPU gets even cheaper

 

Jumping from a i7 920 to an i5 8400 would really be a big jump for you.
A 35% increased boost in desktop productivity and gaming would make things a breeze.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-920-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8400/1981vs3939

 

I'm just shopping around to see what mobo to get as I never do OC and RAM wise I'd run standard 2666 which is what CPU is compatible with.
Any recommendations for around 100 EUR for mobo? I'm sure will find something

 

I5-8400 doesn't have HT. In fact it has LESS threads than i7-920 (6 vs 8). Buy Ryzen 5 instead, get HT and better platform for future too.

 

And very predictably, you would never post any advice other than buy AMD.

The links Mr. Tech has posted, show the 8600 almost doubling the performance of the 920. In point of fact, it also shows my 2 generation old, i5-6600, 4 core, 4 thread CPU, handily creaming the 920 as well

 

Even $100 Ryzen 3 is faster than i7-920. But still, going from 8 threads to 6 is going backwards. As Ryzen 5 has 12 threads, that's going forward. To to mention Ryzen 5 2600 is much faster than i5-8400.

 

No, if you can get more throughput with just 4 cores, the the HT doesn't really matter..

Is the "8400" a typo, or are you cherry picking your comparisons?

 

I recommend asrock if you dont want to do any major oc.
When I get back home I'll show you a few really good mobos to fit your budget.

 

Ryzen is better on about everything, i5 is not. So why get i5 when there are better choices?

i5-8400 has 6 cores. You seem to be only one who wrote about i5-8600.

 

You're not paying attention. I had absolutely nothing to say in regard to the 8600. I simply stated that even the somewhat dated i5-6600, cleans the 920's clock for it, with only half the threads available.

You're a AMD fanbois, and I'm really quite ambivalent about what the TS ends up with. So, it really is pointless to carry this discussion on with you.

So, stop quoting me, at least until you can understand what's been said, and sell, sell, sell, that AMD

 

Yeah but why buy new faster CPU with fewer threads when one can buy faster CPU with more threads? Simple question and nor surprisingly Intel fanboys cannot answer that because Intel has no options on that price range.

For some people (Intel fanboys) it's simply impossible to admit that AMD is better choice for most people.

 

Jaysus, lads. Why does everything need to finish with this BS between two colors?

I read multiple reviews and benches about this level cpu. And yes there were few which AMD won by some margin. For what I use my PC I don't prefer any of sides. I just want to stay with Intel. No real reason why not AMD

 

Here you go amazon uk has a sweet sale going on:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/ASROCK-Soc...F8&qid=1532644313&sr=8-1&keywords=asrock+b360

https://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/B360M Pro4/index.asp#Memory
Asrock mobo's like premium quality memory, if you can afford to buy it start with this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0123ZAQJE/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

If you need anymore more build designs talk to this guy here, tell him I sent you he'll figure it out.
http://www.techist.com/forums/members/pp-mguire/

Don't be frustrated with hard reset he is only trying to help sway you for ryzen.
In the long run though intel would be your best bet for the next 4 years.

 

Would I be losing much if I go with B360 and not H370? I mean, price difference I guess is somewhere 20-30 EUR if even?
The link you gave to RAM is 1x8 GB. Funny, when I select 2x 8 GB price is not 2x, it's almost 3 times... but if I just add two of same RAMs to cart twice it's 160 EUR Where is the catch, same RAM like. I was reading about GAIN of Dual-Memory setup, it's there but very small. I am inclining to go with 16 GB in setup of 2x 8 GB.

P.S. I am not sure about rules of this forum, looks like I unwillingly hijacked this topic with my question re small upgrade of my rig. If that's not cool, I am OK to stop posting on here about my PC.

 

It's okay Mope - this is a 6 year old thread that didn't have much going on with it. Feel free to continue here or make your own thread if you like.

 

Oh my goodness I did not even look at the date/time of this thread

cheers

 

So this build should look like this?
I hate Amazon search, so hard to find anything in it. Im usless Trying to see if there is any decent priced H370 or even B ones with Type C, Wifi and few other bits which would be required.

http://amzn.eu/8LNsCKh
Only RAM is 2x 8 GB.

btw, I cannot find the RAM you showed in the compatible list of AsRock mobo website?