I had problem with it just because the pricing was almost as a intel 2700k that had better performance in almost all categories. But I changed my mind the last moment, I really like AMD and always had. So I really hope this new generation kick intels ass, so great for us costumers if AMD can get back in the game.Originally Posted by DarkstaR
How to find battlelist address --> http://tpforums.org/forum/thread-8146.html
Updating addresses --> http://tpforums.org/forum/thread-8625.html
DataReader --> http://tpforums.org/forum/thread-10387.html
And about the 8 core, yes it is 8 core. But those 8 core are sharing resources so you do not get 8 true cores.
"Hyper-threading works by duplicating certain sections of the processor—those that store the architectural state—but not duplicating the main execution resources. This allows a hyper-threading processor to appear as the usual "physical" processor and an extra "logical" processor to the host operating system (legacy operating systems see two "physical" processors), allowing the operating system to schedule two threads or processes simultaneously and appropriately.
So basically you can say that intel have 8 core, but still don't. I remember when the 8150 was launched they said that this cpu is almost like a 4core intel with ht.
And seriously when do you need 8 core working? Maybe when you convert alot of movies? Or doing other very heavy cpu tasks. Otherwise I do not see any reason buying 8, but only for the because it's cheap.
If you're planning on gaming any cpu today will do the job, in the price line 200$ the gpu is more and more important to modern games.
My intel 2700k is appearing as a 8 core cpu on my system, what I am trying to say is just becouse it is "8core" doesn't make it anything cooler than other cpu's it's a great cpu and I think you will enyoy it. But buy it for the right purpose and reason.
Last edited by klusbert; 02-02-2013 at 12:27 AM.
How to find battlelist address --> http://tpforums.org/forum/thread-8146.html
Updating addresses --> http://tpforums.org/forum/thread-8625.html
DataReader --> http://tpforums.org/forum/thread-10387.html
More like Faildozer.. It isn't close to Intel.. Intel has per-core threading or some shit like that making them work like real cores. You can emulate Nintendo Wii at 200% speed with i5-3570k, but you wont get 95% with Faildozer 8 core.
Most game emulation works on a single-core basis, so that's pretty much irrelevant in the comparison between core performance. Intel may operate on single threads faster, but for tasks which take multiple cores, Intel can lag behind due to the fact that their virtual cores have to share resources which means there's much more cache switching.
Dolphin (Nintendo Wii emulator) only uses 2 cores, it has not been programmed to use more than 2 cores. While emulating, Intel is 199% speed faster than Faildozer.
http://forum.overclock3d.net/showthread.php?t=39817
Last edited by Pro-grammer; 02-10-2013 at 03:43 AM.
Intel's HyperThreading performs worse than AMD's modules (2 cores per module), as Intel's counterpart shares more resources.
benchmark?
You're still missing the point. We've recognized that in physical threaded operations (eg operations that aren't using one of Intel's virtual cores or AMD's extra physical cores), Intel performs better. What I am saying is that an 8 core AMD outperforms a 4 core hyper-threaded Intel when the Intel has to use its virtual cores.
Is that above your level of comprehension, or are you just being a troll?
I understand that AMD 8-Core processors would be faster compared to current / semi-old Intel processors, it's just not because so far only BF3 uses 4 cores and maybe Max Payne 3, applications still need to use more cores to use most of AMD potential. I used to be an AMD user for 6 years, I'm now with Intel i5-3570k @ 4.4 Ghz, just because I like to play Wii on my computer, otherwise I would be still using AMD.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote