Pemalite said:
Vashyo said:
I don't think threads directly translate 1:1 with cores. I know intel has stronger singular core performance but I'm doubting they will still be better, or atleast not plain better as they are now. I don't want to put 200-300€ on something if 150€ CPU could potentially get a sudden performance boost.
|
And why can't threads directly translate to cores?
A program that splits off 4 threads will be allocated to 4 cores, Windows Schedular handles all that and it's actually very good at it.
Compared to Intel, the FX is slow, in the future? The FX will still be slow.
AMD hasn't been competitive with Intel in a long time, the consoles won't change that situation when games become more heavily threaded, just that the AMD FX will look slightly less anemic.
I do have a Phenom 2 x6 in my HTPC and an FX 8120 in my secondary gaming PC, I'm well aware of how good/not good they are in certain tasks, in encoding which can use all the cores on any CPU, the AMD CPU's do well. - They still can't touch an Intel Haswell Quad or Sandy/Ivy Hex core though.
I've provided heavily threaded benchmarks which uses all 8 cores on the AMD FX from a reputable source (And it still looses against the intel Quad) and you still discredit it, so I won't bother replying again.
|
I've seen arguments from both sides and I don't particularily disagree or agree with you. As I see it you could get a good CPU that could turn into a great CPU or get a great cpu that will stay great cpu but its noticeably more expensive.
http://www.shacknews.com/article/81179/amd-expects-performance-advantage-on-pc-due-to-console-partnerships
"Because it's our architecture there, it's easier to port the games. And because they're first developed on our hardware, there should be a performance advantage," he said. "They should run better on our hardware."
