Core head-to-heads

We see many users asking questions about values of specific core quantities and how they compare to others, so we’ve put together a quick-fire reference for some of the most common “battles”.

These head-to-heads are for a rule of thumb only because in reality, for example, a 4 core and 8 core will nearly always have different clock speeds, IPCs, etc. These examples are based on the assumption that all the other specs of the CPUs are identical (other than threads, which we are assuming will be 2 x the core quantity).

Dual-Core vs Quad-Core / 2 Cores vs 4 Cores

While Quad-core processors are becoming less used, dual-core is, in a larger way, on its way out as a valid option for modern desktops.

One of the only CPUs we would consider a valid option for very basic workstations is AMD’s Athlon 3000G (which is nicely on the modern AM4 motherboard socket, but was released in 2019, so is still becoming dated).

Sure, you could build a basic general use PC with dual-core. But for only a tad extra, a quad-core CPU like the i3-9100 will offer significantly more value with its slightly higher price tag. Quad-core is definitely the better choice for even a basic workstation (even 6 core if you can stretch to it, as we detail below).

For gaming, we would pretty much not consider dual-core a valid option as quad-core is the bare minimum for a gaming PC nowadays due to the number of games that require 4 cores / 8 threads as a minimum. Bear in mind that 4 cores are still a tad low for games too (though perfectly doable if you are on a very tight budget).

Dual-Core vs Six-Core / 2 Cores vs 6 Cores

The difference between dual-core and six-core is very significant in modern-day computing. The key change is that 6 cores are way more of a leading market force with more supply/options, so you’ll nearly always be getting way better value with a 6 core processor (even if its price-tag is higher).

Yes, some will argue you can still get away with dual-core for a very basic workstation and we don’t disagree. But our counter would be why not invest a little more for a CPU that will be dramatically more future-proofed for building a long-lasting machine (even for basic use)?

This is why our top general-use/budget recommendation above is the 6-core i5-10400, which still comes on the new LGA 1200 socket and has integrated graphics for a ridiculously low price-tag.

For gaming, this question is a no-brainer; 2 cores is not good enough for modern gaming, 6-8 cores is the sweet spot, with six being perfect for those a little more budget-conscious as we point out in our recommendations above.

Dual-Core vs Octa-Core / 2 Cores vs 8 Cores

At this point, the battle between 2 and 8 cores barely feels fair; with most 8-core options today being premium choices that pack serious power for productivity workstations.

We will say that 8-cores may begin to be the point where your CPU may be overkill if you’re just building a web browsing, media, and/or basic work software computer (where you can get away with a quad-core like the i3-9100 as a budget choice or the 6-core i5-10400 as our recommendation).

If you’re after a machine for productivity, video editing, or mid-range production however, 2 cores is not a good option for you, and 8-core CPUs like the 5800X will provide fantastic utility for more intensive software.

For gaming, 2 cores are below our minimum recommendation of 4 cores; an 8 core processor is what we consider to be on the high-end of the sweet spot of FPS performance gains for most gaming titles (i.e. perfect for mid-range gaming desktops looking for the most value before diminishing returns kick in).

Quad-Core vs Hexa-Core / 4 Cores vs 6 Cores

An argument can be made both ways for a general use PC, but we think the value and longevity a 6-core will provide is the better option for a larger majority of desktop builders even if your needs are simple.

This is largely because modern generations of CPUs are moving to 6-core as one of their standards, so the available options tend to offer better value per dollar.

This is, of course, a rule of thumb only; but taking examples of two of the best value processors for budget builds, the i3-10100 vs the i5 10400. Both of these processors are perfectly suited for a cheap PC, and if your budget is really tight, we can happily recommend the 10100 as a valid option. The reason we focus more on the 10400 as the best budget CPU is because we think that for its modest price increase, having the extra 2 cores will provide you with better longevity that is worth the small price jump.

For gaming, we’d recommend a 6 core processor with better clock speeds like the 4600X if possible. You absolutely can get away with a quad-core CPU if needed, but 6 cores will be better suited to match what games will likely move to in the future as they continue to focus on multi-core/threading optimization.

On a gaming note, while in a perfect world you will have a decent spec GPU and CPU, if your budget is very tight, it will usually be more beneficial to sacrifice CPU specs over investing in a better graphics card.

Quad-Core vs Octa-Core / 4 Cores vs 8 Cores

For a general use PC, we’d definitely recommend four cores over 8 cores, the latter being overkill even for somebody focussed on providing some longevity.

For productivity/production/video editing, 8 cores will usually provide a notable benefit over a 4-core setup.

For gaming, 4-cores is our minimum recommendation, and 8-cores is on the higher mid-range side of the gaming “sweet-spot”, so while we would of course recommend Octa-core processors if possible, it really comes down to if you have the budget as there is certainly a stark difference in cost between the two.

Hexa-Core vs Octa-Core / 6 Cores vs 8 Cores

General workstations with basic internet/software/media needs will usually be fine with the modern 6-core options.

For productivity users, it really depends on how demanding your needs are; there are certainly plenty of 6-core processors that can handle things like 4k video editing, significant compiling, etc. but 8-core options, especially something like the 5800X, will certainly provide you a worthy boost if you can stretch further.

For gaming, 6-8 cores is what we consider the “sweet-spot” for modern-day gaming CPUs; with 6 being on the lower budget side, and 8 being for mid-range users who can fork out for something extra performative.

6 cores would be sensible for someone who needs to invest more in their GPU and there is no shame in settling for something like a Ryzen 5 5600X.

That said; one big reason it would be great to push your build to an 8 core/16 thread CPU if possible as you are then working with a gaming PC that has the same core/thread specs as the new PS5/Xbox Series X. This might not mean much for a little while, but over the console generation, developers will likely start utilizing this architecture layout. Having a CPU that shares these qualities isn’t necessary but will likely open up some better optimization for you on AAA titles made with consoles in mind.

It’s really a close call for gaming, and purely comes down to your budget; we think you’ll be satisfied with the value both options provide.

Hexa-Core vs Deca-Core / 6 Cores vs 10 Cores

Now that our head-to-heads are looking at 10 cores and beyond, we’re really getting into the power-users who are either running intensive workstations or want the absoloute best quality even with diminishing returns.

If you are running demanding production applications with high requirements in rendering, compiling, etc., you will find some value in 10+ core options, but 6 core processor with good specs elsewhere will be more than fine for a budget/mid-range production machine.

For gaming, 10+ cores is where the diminishing returns really settle in. Yes, there will be improvements over 6-core, but most of these will be shared by 8-core processors, so we’d only recommend 10+ for high-end streaming or those who want the absolute best quality regardless of price.

Octa-Core vs Deca-Core / 8 Cores vs 10 Cores

For users with very intensive production requirements, you can expect to see some improvement during your most demanding processes between 8 and 10 cores (but not so much that its a requirement to have those 2 extra cores, 8 will still cope with even some demanding needs).

For gaming, we would recommend sticking to 8 cores unless you are happy with paying significantly more for very minor gains.

Octa-Core vs Dodeca-Core / 8 Cores vs 12 Cores

With AMD being the only player with mainstream 12 core options right now, if you’re interested in this question, we imagine you’re looking at the difference between something like the Ryzen 7 5800X vs Ryzen 9 5900X.

In this case, we would say the 12-core option is reserved for those after a premium productivity machine who significantly rely on intensive processing throughout their day-to-day operations.

For gaming, we would only recommend 12 cores to those who absolutely want the most power out of their desktop, as there are some diminishing returns for the price-tag.

That’s the best way to sum up this head-to-head for most users; 8-core is the better value option for mid-range builds, 12-core is for those more interested in maximum performance over budget concerns.

Octa-Core vs Hexadeca-Core / 8 Cores vs 16 Cores

Although we see this question asked, the difference between 8 cores and 16 cores is becoming so much that it’s a bit of an “apples and oranges” question.

All general users and most productivity users should stick to 8 cores between these two options, which will already provide fantastic power for a large majority of operations.

16 core+ is only recommended today for advanced users with dramatic production/server requirements; we do not recommend going as far as 16 cores for gaming (unless you don’t really care about your wallet!).

Deca-Core vs Dodeca-Core / 10 Cores vs 12 Cores

This head-to-head is a little hard to quantify, as 10-core is where Intel has focussed their higher-end 10th gen options, and 12 core+ is where AMD has defined their premium 5000 series CPUs.

So really, the battle will usually be if you are after a CPU that focuses more on single-core performance (Intel) or more cores/threads (AMD).

In general, we’re more impressed by AMD’s latest 12+ core options and think this will suit more users in this price-range who are likely looking at productivity builds that will benefit from an increase in cores.

Dodeca-Core vs Hexadeca-Core / 12 Cores vs 16 Cores

The only users this question should apply to are those after a very high-spec production machine. Gamers (with finite wallets) will be fine with 12 cores or less, and even advanced productivity machines will get a lot done on 8-12 cores.

So 16 cores and beyond are really reserved for HEDT CPUs that may be needed by large software companies, animators, high-spec production users, and similar. Our honest opinion is that if you’re an individual builder, you almost certainly don’t need 16 cores and we’d only get it if it’s a luxury you can afford comfortably.

Single-Core vs Dual-Core / Multi-Core

We wanted to add this head-to-head just for completeness but realistically, nobody today should build a single-core desktop PC (unless you have some weird nostalgia for it, you may have a hard time finding them though!).

Gaming or not, most applications take advantage of multi-core/threading capabilities and the industry has moved well away from 1 core CPUs, so whatever your build requirement, go for 2 as an absolute minimum.