Fastest single threaded CPU?

J

JesperA

n00b
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
31
Ok, the question is simple enough, is there any data on which CPU is the fastest in single threaded tasks?

I have a problem that only can be executed in a single thread, i just run it once a day.
(do you need to actually know what problem is executed to know what CPU is the fastest single threaded one?)

So since it only uses a single thread, there is no point in buying a 10 core, 2.4ghz CPU like the Intel E7-8870. No doubt a really fast CPU in multi threaded stuff.

So would a Intel E3-1290V2 (4 core, 3.7ghz, probably turboed to 4.1ghz in single thread, http://ark.intel.com/products/65722/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1290-v2-8M-Cache-3_70-GHz ) have a high enough IPC to beat the E7-8870 in single threaded performance?

Or any other suggestions?
 
I donno but id say the best for the Money single threaded would be a 3570k
 
JesperA said:
Ok, the question is simple enough, is there any data on which CPU is the fastest in single threaded tasks?

I have a problem that only can be executed in a single thread, i just run it once a day.
(do you need to actually know what problem is executed to know what CPU is the fastest single threaded one?)

So since it only uses a single thread, there is no point in buying a 10 core, 2.4ghz CPU like the Intel E7-8870. No doubt a really fast CPU in multi threaded stuff.

So would a Intel E3-1290V2 (4 core, 3.7ghz, probably turboed to 4.1ghz in single thread, http://ark.intel.com/products/65722/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-1290-v2-8M-Cache-3_70-GHz ) have a high enough IPC to beat the E7-8870 in single threaded performance?

Or any other suggestions?
Click to expand...

It has to be a server/workstation processor?..
 
1. Buy an I5 or I7 k series

2. Turn hyperthreading off (where available)

3. Turn the # of cores down to the minimum in the BIOS

4. Overclock like nobody's business

5. Profit
 
Ultima99 said:
1. Buy an I5 or I7 k series

2. Turn hyperthreading off (where available)

3. Turn the # of cores down to the minimum in the BIOS

4. Overclock like nobody's business

5. Profit
Click to expand...

This.
 
If you are looking for a natively single-core CPU, I beleive Celerons are the only ones on the market, desktop-wise.
 
Amd sempron ftw.... lmao single core and great performance. I know I have one. Def not fastest haha. Nit by a long shot.
 
KazeoHin said:
If you are looking for a natively single-core CPU, I beleive Celerons are the only ones on the market, desktop-wise.
Click to expand...

He said "Fastest", using your logic a 386 DX40 would be a option :p , I have one kicking around in a draw I could sell.
 
Ultima99 said:
1. Buy an I5 or I7 k series

2. Turn hyperthreading off (where available)

3. Turn the # of cores down to the minimum in the BIOS

4. Overclock like nobody's business

5. Profit
Click to expand...

I see that turning off HT will yield some results, is disabling cores equally effective?
 
I assume the purpose of that is to increase the overclock with less worry about heat output.
 
1. You will still want the CPU to be more than a single core so it will be able to handle stuff like services, etc. while your program is running.

Dropping down to a single core will slow it down quite a bit.

2. Depending on how much data is actually being worked on, you will most likely want to get a CPU with the most L3 cache that you can. The L2 and L1 cache size is the same on higher end Intel CPUs if I remember correctly.

3. Get a really good cooler and overclock it like crazy.

Xeon is not going to matter one bit, especially if you are looking for the fastest unless you put it in a non-server board and overclock. It is still going to be the same speed clock for clock as long as it is the same gen as a regular i7 and has the same amount of cache.

See my sig.. A setup of this type is going to have pretty high single threaded performance.

I only have 12MB L3 cache. If you moved up to a 3930k, you would get 15MB L3 cache.

The 8-core Xeons have 20MB L3 cache, but a faster clocked one is going to be super expensive as well as not be able to be clocked as high even if you disable some of the cores due to the clock multiplier lock.

Ivy Bridge is going to be a bit faster clock for clock than Sandy Bridge-E.

And if you have a really big data set, you are going to want to get the fastest RAM possible.

On my old i7-920 system when running at 4Ghz and DDR3-2000, I was besting a ssystem with the same processor running at 4.2Ghz with DDR3-1600 by about 15% on a big data set benchmark (5GB+).
 
omniscence said:
I see that turning off HT will yield some results, is disabling cores equally effective?
Click to expand...

HT basically divides a core into 2 threads, for single thread performance its best to disable. For properly multithreaded apps it can be a big boost in efficiency.

Disabling cores will allow you to hit a higher clock speed. Don't go below 2 because you want the OS and background processes on one core and your big app on the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top