apps that use multiple cores, threads

Started May 12, 2013 | Discussions
Mark1t Regular Member • Posts: 246
apps that use multiple cores, threads

What apps use multi-cores? I know games use 2-3 cores, but are there other programs? Photo editing software, Adobe softwares, or just simple ones like browsere?

Thanks: Mark

Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,342
benchmarks
3

Mark1t wrote:

What apps use multi-cores? I know games use 2-3 cores, but are there other programs? Photo editing software, Adobe softwares, or just simple ones like browsere?

Thanks: Mark

Most of Adobe's software (Lightroom, Photoshop CS6, CS6 Premiere Pro, etc.) is able to do more than one thing in parallel in order to take advantage of more cores - up to a point, as sometimes there is only so much you can do in parallel by breaking up the work into smaller chunks, and sometimes operations are serial in nature, where one thing has to complete before another.

You'll see that with a number of other image and video editing products anymore, too (able to take better advantage of multiple cpu cores.

I assume this question is because you're still debating if an AMD FX-6300 is a good choice as compared to Core i3 3xxx CPU in the same price range for the PC build you started a thread about.

Here are a variety of benchmarks comparing the FX-6300 with a slightly more expensive Core i3 3225.

CPU Benchmarks - AMD FX-6300 vs. Intel Core i3 3225

With the vast majority of the tests, the 6 cores of the AMD FX-6300 allowed tasks to complete faster than the 2 cores in the Intel Core i3 3225.  Look at the time in seconds for doing a lot of tasks in that chart (where lower is better).

But, in some cases, where the programs were written to be more single threaded in nature (for example, iTunes or Lame audio encoding, or creation of a .pdf file using Acrobat)  the Core i3 3225 completed them faster.  That's because the Intel CPU has a higher performance per core compared to the AMD CPU.

What you'll also notice is that even when programs are written to take better advantage of multiple CPU Cores (for example, something like video encoding using handbrake, Adobe Premiere Pro; applying filters to a TIFF file using Photoshop CS6, etc.), the 6 Core FX-6300 may be faster (pretty close to twice as fast for many multi-threaded benchmarks), but it's not 3 times as fast (even though it has 3 times the core count).   Again, that's because the Intel CPU has better performance per core.

Again, some apps can do more processes in parallel compared to others, too -- even if they can take advantage of more cores.

But, as already discussed in the thread you started, I'd consider the FX-6300 to be a much better bet compared to a Core i3 3xxx CPU in that price range, as it's going to outperform it with many modern apps related to things like image processing and video encoding.  As for gaming, your GPU (video card) is the most important factor there, as modern games rely on the GPU more than the CPU.

Also, keep in mind that there are other processes using the CPU, not just a specific program (operating system level processes, other software running on your PC at the same time as the software you're using for image editing, etc.).   Modern Operating Systems are pretty good about distributing the workload over the available cores anymore too - thanks to more advanced schedulers.

So, there is no way I'd spend as much or more for something like a dual core CPU like a Core i3 3225 versus a 6 core CPU like the FX-6300.

Now, when considering something like a 4 core CPU like an Intel Core i5 3570K versus a 6 Core CPU like that AMD FX-6300, then I'd opt for the Intel, even though it only has 4 cores versus the AMD's 6 cores.  Again, that's because the newer Intel CPUs have higher performance per core, so in most cases, you'll find that the Intel Core i5 3570K is going to outperform a hexa core AMD FX-6300 CPU.  The Intel also uses less power compared to the AMD CPU.

But, the quad core Intel Core i5 3570K is a more expensive CPU, too. 

IOW, you'd need to move up to an 8 Core FX-8350 to get equivalent or better performance compared to something like a 4 Core Intel Core i5 3570K (and they're about the same price)

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

BPB Contributing Member • Posts: 753
Re: apps that use multiple cores, threads

Hi Mark,

According to Nikon Europe Support, Nikon Capture NX2 from version 2.3.1 can utilise multicore processors.

Here is a reply from Nikon when I asked this question.

Dear Bryan,
Thank you for your chat,
I have checked your request and can confirm the following.
Only the latest version of Capture NX2 (2.3.1) utilises multi-core processors. Any versions before version 2.3.1 would not have this functionality.
Nikon have not released any further information regarding accessing and using CUDA core technology of Nvida graphics cards.
If there is anything else I can help you with, please let me know.
Kind regards,
Ferg Redmond
Customer Support Advisor Nikon Europe Support www.europe-nikon.com/support

Bryan (BPB)

Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,342
Re: benchmarks

Jim Cockfield wrote:

What you'll also notice is that even when programs are written to take better advantage of multiple CPU Cores (for example, something like video encoding using handbrake, Adobe Premiere Pro; applying filters to a TIFF file using Photoshop CS6, etc.), the 6 Core FX-6300 may be faster (pretty close to twice as fast for many multi-threaded benchmarks), but it's not 3 times as fast (even though it has 3 times the core count).   Again, that's because the Intel CPU has better performance per core.

For example, one of the rows you'll see in that comparison of a Core i3 3225 and FX-6300 is labeled "Total Score in Time" (which is a tally of how long both CPUs took to complete all of the time based benchmarks).   Those included things like video encoding using different products, audio encoding using different products, image rendering using different products, things like applying filters to a TIFF file using Photoshop, and more.

CPU Benchmarks - AMD FX-6300 vs. Intel Core i3 3225

The FX-6300 took 1969 seconds to complete all of the time based benchmarks, whereas the Core i3 3225 took 3095 seconds to complete all of them.

So, the FX-6300 is a lot faster overall for completing the tasks benchmarked there.   But, it's not 3 times as fast, even though it has 3 times the number of CPU cores (6 cores in the FX-6300 versus 2 cores in the Intel Core i3 3225).

For one thing, some of the programs benchmarked were more single threaded in nature and didn't take advantage of more CPU cores.  So, because each single Intel core has better performance than each single AMD core, you're not going to see 3 times the performance with the AMD, just because it has 3 times the core count.

But, overall, the hexa core AMD FX-6300 is going to be a much bet compared to a dual core Intel Core i3 3225, performing more tasks faster compared to the Intel CPU.

Also, even with tasks that are single threaded in nature, modern Operating Systems are pretty good about distributing those tasks between available CPU cores to help balance the workload per core; as you'll likely have more than one thing running at a time (including operating system level tasks).   So, as CPU schedulers improve over time with modern Operating Systems, the extra cores will be better utilized when doing a lot of multi-tasking (browsers, office apps, image editing apps, virus scan utilities, etc., all running at the same time).

Now, again (as pointed out in my last post), if you move up to a more expensive CPU, then something like a quad core Intel Core i5 3570K is going to outperform that hexa core AMD FX-6300.  You'd need to move to up to something like the 8 core AMD FX-8350 if you wanted something with equivalent or better performance for most tasks if you wanted to stick with AMD (and the FX-8350 and Core i5 3570K are priced about the same).   Note that the Intel CPU also draws less power compare to the AMD CPU.  There are pros and cons to any of them.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

OP Mark1t Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: benchmarks

For example, one of the rows you'll see in that comparison of a Core i3 3225 and FX-6300 is labeled "Total Score in Time" (which is a tally of how long both CPUs took to complete all of the time based benchmarks).   Those included things like video encoding using different products, audio encoding using different products, image rendering using different products, things like applying filters to a TIFF file using Photoshop, and more.

CPU Benchmarks - AMD FX-6300 vs. Intel Core i3 3225

The FX-6300 took 1969 seconds to complete all of the time based benchmarks, whereas the Core i3 3225 took 3095 seconds to complete all of them.

So, the FX-6300 is a lot faster overall for completing the tasks benchmarked there.   But, it's not 3 times as fast, even though it has 3 times the number of CPU cores (6 cores in the FX-6300 versus 2 cores in the Intel Core i3 3225).

For one thing, some of the programs benchmarked were more single threaded in nature and didn't take advantage of more CPU cores.  So, because each single Intel core has better performance than each single AMD core, you're not going to see 3 times the performance with the AMD, just because it has 3 times the core count.

But, overall, the hexa core AMD FX-6300 is going to be a much bet compared to a dual core Intel Core i3 3225, performing more tasks faster compared to the Intel CPU.

Also, even with tasks that are single threaded in nature, modern Operating Systems are pretty good about distributing those tasks between available CPU cores to help balance the workload per core; as you'll likely have more than one thing running at a time (including operating system level tasks).   So, as CPU schedulers improve over time with modern Operating Systems, the extra cores will be better utilized when doing a lot of multi-tasking (browsers, office apps, image editing apps, virus scan utilities, etc., all running at the same time).

Now, again (as pointed out in my last post), if you move up to a more expensive CPU, then something like a quad core Intel Core i5 3570K is going to outperform that hexa core AMD FX-6300.  You'd need to move to up to something like the 8 core AMD FX-8350 if you wanted something with equivalent or better performance for most tasks if you wanted to stick with AMD (and the FX-8350 and Core i5 3570K are priced about the same).   Note that the Intel CPU also draws less power compare to the AMD CPU.  There are pros and cons to any of them.

When i will upgrade for a more eypensive cpu, what is better? Sell the cpu and MOBO and buy an intel 15-3570k, or just sell the cpu and buy an fx-8350?  Is the fx-8350 the best cpu of AMD? (i know there are opterons, but those are for servers.

Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,342
Re: benchmarks

Mark1t wrote:
------

When i will upgrade for a more eypensive cpu, what is better? Sell the cpu and MOBO and buy an intel 15-3570k, or just sell the cpu and buy an fx-8350?  Is the fx-8350 the best cpu of AMD? (i know there are opterons, but those are for servers.

The FX-8350 is your best bet for a higher performance CPU in the AMD Lineup if you really wanted to upgrade for some reason.  But, I sure wouldn't upgrade to it if I already had an FX-6300.

Looking at lots of tasks and differences in time to complete them is fine for getting a better feel for how one compares to another.

But, you'd have to consider if you'd even notice the difference in real world use for most of the things you do with a PC.   Also, you have other bottlenecks (not just CPU speed) in a system that impact performance (disk drive setup and speed, memory available, etc.).

Personally, I would not upgrade a CPU as fast as the FX-6300 without a very good reason, as it's a pretty fast CPU; and I would not normally upgrade to anything unless I was going to double my performance, even if I had a good reason (and you're not going to double your performance moving from an FX-6300 to a Core i5 3570K or FX-8350.

Also, by the time you do need to upgrade, you may find that newer CPU models are available, with different motherboards needed to support them.   Technology doesn't stand still, and you're likely to see newer Intel and AMD models coming out before you need to upgrade.

As for how something like the FX-8350 and Core i5 3570K compare, they're very closely matched.  For example, the FX-8350 took 1577 seconds to complete all of the time based benchmarks in the link below, whereas the Core i5 3570 took 1629 seconds to complete all of them (the Intel was slightly slower overall, but they're very close to each other for most tasks).

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2012/compare,3144.html?prod[5877]=on&prod[5755]=on

So, I would not swap out a motherboard and install that Intel CPU if I already had one that would support the FX-8350.

But, then again, I would not upgrade to either one of them if I already had an FX-6300, as I doubt I'd notice the difference in performance in real world use (versus looking at benchmarks timing those kinds of tasks), since the FX-6300 is already a pretty fast CPU.   I'd be more likely to upgrade things like disk drive configuration instead.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

AxelR Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
FastPictureViewer Professional (multi-core + GPU)
Deleted1929 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,050
Re: apps that use multiple cores, threads

Modern OSes can make use of the extra cores, but a surprising amount of processing is still based on single core applications.  The OSes try to distribute the load, but they can't do that as efficiently as they can with an application written explicitly to exploit multiple cores ( or threading ).

Image processing is moving to do a lot of heavy weight work in the GPU, so you have to think of a GPU as a kind of specialist extra set of processors.  Very powerful for a limited range of functions.

I think people worry too much about CPU performance these days.  You really need to have very demanding requirements ( or be an absolute game-head ) to need top of the range kit.

-- hide signature --

StephenG

glasswave Forum Pro • Posts: 10,297
Re: apps that use multiple cores, threads

Mark1t wrote:

What apps use multi-cores? I know games use 2-3 cores, but are there other programs? Photo editing software, Adobe softwares, or just simple ones like browsere?

I have a six core i7 (3930K), which also has 6 more virtual cores.

While Adobe pShop will  access more than 2 cores, it seldom uses more than a fraction of my cpu power. Lightroom can be tricked into using more power by doing simultaneous export batches.

Apps that consistently max all 12 cores while rendering.

3ds Max, Maya, After Effects, Premirere, mudbox, media encoder.

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

OP Mark1t Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: apps that use multiple cores, threads

how to trick lightroom to use more cores?

glasswave Forum Pro • Posts: 10,297
Re: apps that use multiple cores, threads

Mark1t wrote:

how to trick lightroom to use more cores?

glasswave wrote:

"Lightroom can be tricked into using more power [cores] by doing [several] simultaneous export batches."

google search -- lightroom multithreaded

-- hide signature --

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

Jim Cockfield Forum Pro • Posts: 16,342
Mark... the system you're considering is just fine

Mark.

The system you're considering would be just fine.  The one mentioned in this thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51445763

Look, it's "miles" ahead of the systems available not long ago.  For example, that FX-6300 CPU is roughly 5 times as fast my wife's laptop with an older Core 2 Duo in it.

Even if you go with the fastest consumer CPU available, you're still going to find that anything with even double the performance of the CPU you're looking at is not going to make a lot of difference for typical usage (as you're going to see other bottlenecks in a system that can be more important than the CPU load once you get to one as fast as the one you're considering;).

IOW, you're going to see diminishing returns with anything faster (where you may spend 2 or 3 times as much for a CPU, only to see a very small difference in performance in real world use, as the way you're using a PC may not tax the CPU as much as other components in it.

IOW, just because you may find a CPU that completes processing 200 images in 100 seconds versus 150 seconds with the CPU you're looking at on benchmarks, doesn't mean you're going to notice the difference in day to day usage.

Think about how you use something like lightroom.  For example, I'd usually work on one image at a time, tweaking exposure, white balance, etc.; and you probably wouldn't even notice the difference in that type of usage versus a CPU costing twice as much.

Even if you do want to do something like apply the same adjustments to hundreds of images in a batch (as some of the benchmarks comparing CPU performance are doing), do you really think you'd care if one CPU completed that kind of thing faster than another?

It's not like you can't use the PC for something else while that kind of process is running either. 

IOW, are you going to be processing hundreds of images on a day to base basis and care if one CPU completes batch processing of them a minute faster than another CPU?   I wouldn't, even if I were processing hundreds of images every day.

Any of the CPUs you're considering are going to be in the same "ballpark" for performance compared to the CPUs available a few years back.

Heck, I still use an Intel Core 2 Quad (Q6600) for most of my work, and I still don't see a need to upgrade to something newer for the way I use a PC; and the FX-6300 you're looking at is roughly twice as fast as fast as my Q6600.

Even if you went to something like an Intel Core i7 3930K (a CPU with 6 physical cores + 6 Virtual Cores via hyper threading supporting 12 simultaneous threads (a $500+ CPU) that's roughly twice as fast as the FX-6300 you're looking at; unless you're planning on processing larger batches of images every day and care about a minute or so extra time to process them, you're probably not going to notice the benefit for typical usage.

Again, the CPU you're looking at has super value (price/performance ratio) compared to anything in it's class.  Note the bottom graph on this page):

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core

It's more than twice as fast as the CPU in my current desktop. This one:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q6600+%40+2.40GHz&id=1038

It's 5 times as fast as the Intel Core 2 Duo in a Dell Insprion 1720 laptop I still use, too).

Heck, that FX-6300 is almost 14 times times as fast as the CPU in my latest Netbook (a little Dell Inspiron 11Z using a Celeron 743 CPU). This CPU:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+743+%40+1.30GHz&id=660

IOW, the CPU you're looking at is plenty fast enough for typical usage.

If I were in your shoes, I'd spend my money on something else like faster disk drives, more memory, etc. (or a faster video card if you're into gaming like it appears you're interested in) versus worrying about a faster CPU compared to that FX-6300 when building a system on a very tight budget (as appears to be the case judging by your previous posts); as the CPU you're looking at is plenty fast enough for most uses.

IOW, the CPU is only part of the equation (as you also have disk drive configuration and speed, video card performance, memory amount, software you're using, etc. to worry about), and for most uses, the CPU you're looking at is plenty fast enough,  especially if building a system on a tighter budget, as appears to be the case, as the FX-6300 CPU you're looking at has much better value (price/performance ratio) compared to anything else in it's price range.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

OP Mark1t Regular Member • Posts: 246
Re: Mark... the system you're considering is just fine

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Mark.

The system you're considering would be just fine.  The one mentioned in this thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51445763

Look, it's "miles" ahead of the systems available not long ago.  For example, that FX-6300 CPU is roughly 5 times as fast my wife's laptop with an older Core 2 Duo in it.

Even if you go with the fastest consumer CPU available, you're still going to find that anything with even double the performance of the CPU you're looking at is not going to make a lot of difference for typical usage (as you're going to see other bottlenecks in a system that can be more important than the CPU load once you get to one as fast as the one you're considering;).

IOW, you're going to see diminishing returns with anything faster (where you may spend 2 or 3 times as much for a CPU, only to see a very small difference in performance in real world use, as the way you're using a PC may not tax the CPU as much as other components in it.

IOW, just because you may find a CPU that completes processing 200 images in 100 seconds versus 150 seconds with the CPU you're looking at on benchmarks, doesn't mean you're going to notice the difference in day to day usage.

Think about how you use something like lightroom.  For example, I'd usually work on one image at a time, tweaking exposure, white balance, etc.; and you probably wouldn't even notice the difference in that type of usage versus a CPU costing twice as much.

Even if you do want to do something like apply the same adjustments to hundreds of images in a batch (as some of the benchmarks comparing CPU performance are doing), do you really think you'd care if one CPU completed that kind of thing faster than another?

It's not like you can't use the PC for something else while that kind of process is running either. 

IOW, are you going to be processing hundreds of images on a day to base basis and care if one CPU completes batch processing of them a minute faster than another CPU?   I wouldn't, even if I were processing hundreds of images every day.

Any of the CPUs you're considering are going to be in the same "ballpark" for performance compared to the CPUs available a few years back.

Heck, I still use an Intel Core 2 Quad (Q6600) for most of my work, and I still don't see a need to upgrade to something newer for the way I use a PC; and the FX-6300 you're looking at is roughly twice as fast as fast as my Q6600.

Even if you went to something like an Intel Core i7 3930K (a CPU with 6 physical cores + 6 Virtual Cores via hyper threading supporting 12 simultaneous threads (a $500+ CPU) that's roughly twice as fast as the FX-6300 you're looking at; unless you're planning on processing larger batches of images every day and care about a minute or so extra time to process them, you're probably not going to notice the benefit for typical usage.

Again, the CPU you're looking at has super value (price/performance ratio) compared to anything in it's class.  Note the bottom graph on this page):

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-6300+Six-Core

It's more than twice as fast as the CPU in my current desktop. This one:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+Quad+Q6600+%40+2.40GHz&id=1038

It's 5 times as fast as the Intel Core 2 Duo in a Dell Insprion 1720 laptop I still use, too).

Heck, that FX-6300 is almost 14 times times as fast as the CPU in my latest Netbook (a little Dell Inspiron 11Z using a Celeron 743 CPU). This CPU:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+743+%40+1.30GHz&id=660

IOW, the CPU you're looking at is plenty fast enough for typical usage.

If I were in your shoes, I'd spend my money on something else like faster disk drives, more memory, etc. (or a faster video card if you're into gaming like it appears you're interested in) versus worrying about a faster CPU compared to that FX-6300 when building a system on a very tight budget (as appears to be the case judging by your previous posts); as the CPU you're looking at is plenty fast enough for most uses.

IOW, the CPU is only part of the equation (as you also have disk drive configuration and speed, video card performance, memory amount, software you're using, etc. to worry about), and for most uses, the CPU you're looking at is plenty fast enough,  especially if building a system on a tighter budget, as appears to be the case, as the FX-6300 CPU you're looking at has much better value (price/performance ratio) compared to anything else in it's price range.

I'm not worried about the cpu, i just opened a thread, to see, what programs usees multi-cores. I need a pc for little gaming, but the main reason that i bought a new pc is, because i need a responsive and quick system. So while i'm using photoshop, i could open a browser, and itunes etc. Thanks for your help, and many replies, i'm sure if i'll have another questions i will ask you

Thanks

Mark

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads