newtekie1A single core processor is not enough for todays modern games. Saddly, even dual-cores are being bogged down. The days of a highly clocked dual-core being better than a lower clocked quad are coming to an end. With the increased amounts of physic game developers are cramming into games, and increased realizm, dual-core processor are starting to show they can't keep up.

I can understand a single core being swamped somewhat, but not a dual.

newtekie1A single core processor is not enough for todays modern games. Saddly, even dual-cores are being bogged down. The days of a highly clocked dual-core being better than a lower clocked quad are coming to an end. With the increased amounts of physic game developers are cramming into games, and increased realizm, dual-core processor are starting to show they can't keep up.

In what games are Dual cores bogged down?
The physics developers are cramming into game are, at the moment, being handled by the GPU or phys card.

I disagree with the Tense of your post completely. Give it another year or 2 and you'll be right. but at the moment there aren't many (if any) games that will perform better on a lower clocked, same cache quad core.
The major factor effecting modern games is the GPu not the amount of cores.

Btw. i'm seriously considering AMD for my next big upgrade, i just need to look into the price vs. performance for my budget.

Looking good but they also need to plan on moving to 32nm as well which Intel will have by years end I believe.

my first Computer was an AMD, and it kicks ass compared to my dad's intel computer(from back then).

Sadly since then ive swung to intel, and im sure that someday AMD will rise again, i hope that they will have their time in the sun once more.

why not some 5w netbook cpus? someone know when these will come out?

I thought I will stop buying CPUs this year, now I am tempted lol.

hatI can understand a single core being swamped somewhat, but not a dual.

Once a game is coded for symetrical multiprocessing, the fewer cores it is running on the slower it will go. Since a lot of games are ports from Xbox 360 which has a tri-core processor, you really need at least a tri-core for a lot of modern games.

An example of this is Saints Row 2. There's other games that are still largely single threaded like X3: Terran Conflict. It really doesn't take much happening in the game to slow it to a crawl. :(

DarrenQuick questions guys, a friend and I was wondering this...

From a theoretical standpoint which CPU has the advantage the six core AMD Barcelona or the 4 core I7 with 4 virtual cores

Edit: or is it the Istanbul with the six cores, but either way the advantage is where?

I believe the Core i7 still comes out on top because it can do more work than the hexa-core processor. I imagine they are probably pretty close though.

It's 4 cores vs 6 cores, each core has a cache. I would imagine the 6 core would be better.

ShadowFoldIt's 4 cores vs 6 cores, each core has a cache. I would imagine the 6 core would be better.

It'll depend on application as always. If the app can utilize all 6 cores then yeah you'd think so, if it also utilized HT well then they may be pretty close. I believe Westmere (I7) is supposed to have a 32nm 6-core iteration near the end of this year though, so this likely won't catch AMD up much. A bit though, if they keep pushing at this rate they may get back into it (race for the fastest that is), they already know Intel's timeline for the next 3 years.

pepsi71oceanmy first Computer was an AMD, and it kicks ass compared to my dad's intel computer(from back then).

Sadly since then ive swung to intel, and im sure that someday AMD will rise again, i hope that they will have their time in the sun once more.

that time began at 720 launch.

WarEagleAULooking good but they also need to plan on moving to 32nm as well which Intel will have by years end I believe.

i thought they were going to 22

They wont catch up in the ultra high end range for awhile, but they got the midrange gamer market locked down IMO.

ShadowFoldThey wont catch up in the ultra high end range for awhile, but they got the midrange gamer market locked down IMO.

They realy do... Unless we count those people, who goes into shop, asks for normal gaming PC, and when being offered AMD cpu, "No NO, not the AMD!" "Why?" "Eeeee, mmmm, i dunno..."

Fun with numbers!

Kitkati thought they were going to 22

Actually AMD already has a 6 core processor. It is a server processor and is not for desktops. I am sure they will release a 6 core desktop processor by the end of this year.

Yes Intel will be the first to 32 nm, but AMD release a statement back in Feb. I believe that stated they were currently targeting being the first to 28 nm. Granted, 4 nm doesn't seem like much, but we are talking about at least 4 to 8 cores based on this architecture. This provides 16 to 32 nm more space for additional core, more cache space, smaller chip size, less heat.

I just hope they can reach their goal and be the first to 28 nm. That would be the turning point if all goes well.

TheLaughingManActually AMD already has a 6 core processor. It is a server processor and is not for desktops. I am sure they will release a 6 core desktop processor by the end of this year.

Yes Intel will be the first to 32 nm, but AMD release a statement back in Feb. I believe that stated they were currently targeting being the first to 28 nm. Granted, 4 nm doesn't seem like much, but we are talking about at least 4 to 8 cores based on this architecture. This provides 16 to 32 nm more space for additional core, more cache space, smaller chip size, less heat.

I just hope they can reach their goal and be the first to 28 nm. That would be the turning point if all goes well.

ah 28 is what i meant sorry. :)

ShadowFoldThey wont catch up in the ultra high end range for awhile, but they got the midrange gamer market locked down IMO.

720 810 940 955 , those arent midrange chips. And black additions arent purchased for "midrange" gammers. GPU market controls that anyway.

silkstoneIn what games are Dual cores bogged down?
The physics developers are cramming into game are, at the moment, being handled by the GPU or phys card.

I disagree with the Tense of your post completely. Give it another year or 2 and you'll be right. but at the moment there aren't many (if any) games that will perform better on a lower clocked, same cache quad core.
The major factor effecting modern games is the GPu not the amount of cores.

Btw. i'm seriously considering AMD for my next big upgrade, i just need to look into the price vs. performance for my budget.

That's very true GPU market controls that also at the moment unfortunately. Unless there is software advancement or an EASY conversion via OS (miracle) happens we wont see true power of these processors. They will just have t keep building them into tiny SUPERCOMPUTERS (which they are now) to run our poorly coded (according to what the standard SHOULD BE of good code and efficiency by now at least) programs that don't utilize any of it. Right now most processing power is "raw" and not coded TO most processors "features" or advancements. You'll hear the same 6 or so names ("Photo shop andddddd the rest here on Gilligan's isl.......)" in the list of programs that use the next gen processors. This is the IMPORTANCE of good development software (easy quick smart efficient scalable) to back up great software also. So more MANY MORE companies WITH LIMITED TO EXPERT skill sets can convert,upgrade,and utilize current and future software. Just like race car engineers no longer look toward JUST the engine for "power". All the parts have to come together. Just look at boot times and what AS rock did. Imagine a world where everyone was on the same page on the subject of input, and one didn't JUST depend on the other for output.

farlex85It'll depend on application as always. If the app can utilize all 6 cores then yeah you'd think so, if it also utilized HT well then they may be pretty close. I believe Westmere (I7) is supposed to have a 32nm 6-core iteration near the end of this year though, so this likely won't catch AMD up much. A bit though, if they keep pushing at this rate they may get back into it (race for the fastest that is), they already know Intel's timeline for the next 3 years.

Intel has the hexa-core Dunnington (based on Penryn) out which will definitely be faster than AMD's hexa-core. If the quad-core Nehalem is faster than Dunnington then the quad-core Nehalem is also faster than AMD's hexa-core. Unfortunately, I can't find any benchmarks for a Dunnington processor--probably because they are really expensive.

TheLaughingManActually AMD already has a 6 core processor. It is a server processor and is not for desktops. I am sure they will release a 6 core desktop processor by the end of this year.

Yes Intel will be the first to 32 nm, but AMD release a statement back in Feb. I believe that stated they were currently targeting being the first to 28 nm. Granted, 4 nm doesn't seem like much, but we are talking about at least 4 to 8 cores based on this architecture. This provides 16 to 32 nm more space for additional core, more cache space, smaller chip size, less heat.

I just hope they can reach their goal and be the first to 28 nm. That would be the turning point if all goes well.

AMD doesn't own the fabs anymore. They split the fabs off and created the "Global Foundry Company" or something like that. AMD's fabs have never transistioned to a smaller processs before Intel.

more cash for phenom II please

Kitkat720 810 940 955 , those arent midrange chips. And black additions arent purchased for "midrange" gammers. GPU market controls that anyway.

You got that backwards, that is midranged. Those are the procs that most of the population buy and the most expensive of them is about 1/4 of the price of the best proc out there. And the cheapest of them is about 1/6th of the best procs price, if that isn't mid ranged then exactly what is?

When you can pickup a 720BE at $140 they are purchased for midranged gamers, that cheap for unlocked multiplier why not (thats why I have one).

TheLaughingManActually AMD already has a 6 core processor. It is a server processor and is not for desktops.

Where? Amd server processors

FordGT90ConceptIntel has the hexa-core Dunnington (based on Penryn) out which will definitely be faster than AMD's hexa-core.

I don't think so. Dunnington uses the old and crappy fsb, i could imagine, this would be a serious bottleneck.
If i have to bet, a six core opteron would be faster on the whole.

45 nm? took long enough. =/

beyond_amusia45 nm? took long enough. =/

lol. Did you sleep in the last half-year or what? :roll:

Valdezlol. Did you sleep in the last half-year or what? :roll:

I'm new to the AMD platform - was using a Pentium D 925 OCed to 3.77 GHz for over 2 years and it was 65 nm and also from 2006 - Intel has more $, so I can see why they do die shrinks so rapidly - Intel will soon be 32 nm actually - next year I think - but when it comes to price vs performance, AMD pwns Intel :nutkick:

ValdezI don't think so. Dunnington uses the old and crappy fsb, i could imagine, this would be a serious bottleneck.
If i have to bet, a six core opteron would be faster on the whole.

It isn't. The FB-DIMMs on Xeons are higher latency but mega bandwidth (not to mention very high write performance). The FB-DIMM design effectively eliminates the problems associated with FSB bandwidth. If you had some $15,000, you could make a 24-core server.

1Kurgan1You got that backwards, that is midranged. Those are the procs that most of the population buy and the most expensive of them is about 1/4 of the price of the best proc out there. And the cheapest of them is about 1/6th of the best procs price, if that isn't mid ranged then exactly what is?

When you can pickup a 720BE at $140 they are purchased for midranged gamers, that cheap for unlocked multiplier why not (thats why I have one).

"that cheap for unlocked multiplier why not " (cause its common sence plz spread it :) )
The price dosnt make it midranged it makes it a steal. oh and AX2 7XXX P1 9XXX. AX4