AMD single thread is good enough? Yea really? How many games at this point in time for example uses more then 4 threads? Heck even a lot of programs don't really use much more then 2. Less you get in to encoding graphic design kinda stuff that really helps a ton in.
Okay, most games use 4 threads or even less. But that doesn't mean other cores are useless. I can play games with
at worst case negligible (due to no turbo) and at best case no performance loss while recording gameplay at 1920x1080@40 (or more) with superb quality straight into h264 with enough compression to keep the filesize relatively tiny (using ffmpeg+libx264). Meanwhile, a friend with a 4-core Intel said it becomes a bit lacking, reducing performance and making him record at slightly lower video framerates for it to keep up. Video transcoding speed is also very good, as long as using sane software. As @
Mindweaver already mentioned, for crunching/folding – more cores, the better. Very important for me – compiling. Compiling benefits greatly from increased core count and pretty much scales linearly. [Re]Compiling larger projects can take very long on just a few cores. As a software engineer / programmer, I often need to recompile large projects several times a day. Especially when doing regression tests, where it can easily need a over dozen recompiles. Thus, when I moved from my dual-core to a octa-core, there was much rejoicing due to reducing compile time of a certain project I work on from ~ one hour to less than five minutes. Also, it is disappointing that in the Windows world a lot of software is still poorly threaded. While on Linux (the OS I use 99% of the time), things tend to be more threaded.
Sure, I can get the same or even better MT performance with a 6-core HT'ed Intel. But for what? 2x the price or even more? Thanks, but no thanks.
P.S. +1 to what newtekie1 said
on top of that they use 50% more power then the competitors cpu. Yea AMD cpu looks good cause initial cheaper cost but over year or 2 that cost even's out when it add's up in an eletric bill. AMD needs to get i would say either same performance with lower wattage or same wattage with say around 30% boost in single thread work loads. But that game seems to change quick when the 6/8core haswells come out in next 6ish months.
Okay, I kept deciding on not pointing this out, but I will. Since people tend to needlessly bash AMD for inefficient design when it comes to power consumption.
Example, sorted from most to least watts allocated to a single core:
Code:
i7-3820 – 4 cores, 130W TDP; 130 / 4 = 32.5W per core
FX-4350 – 4 cores, 125W TDP; 125 / 4 = 31.25W per core
FX-9590 – 8 cores, 220W TDP; 220 / 8 = 27.5W per core
i7-3970X – 6 cores, 150W TDP; 150 / 6 = 25W per core
i7-2600K – 4 cores, 95W TDP; 95 / 4 = 23.75W per core
FX-4320 – 4 cores, 95W TDP; 95 / 4 = 23.75W per core
i5-2450P – 4 cores, 95W TDP; 95 / 4 = 23.75W per core
i7-4770K – 4 cores, 84W TDP; 84 / 4 = 21W per core
FX-6350 – 6 cores, 125W TDP; 125 / 6 = 20.83W per core
i5-3550 – 4 cores, 77W TDP; 77 / 4 = 19.25W per core
i3-2330M – 2 cores, 35W TDP; 35 / 2 = 17.5W per core
FX-6300 – 6 cores. 95W TDP; 95 / 6 = 15.83W per core
FX-8350 – 8 cores, 125W TDP; 125 / 8 = 15.625W per core
OH SNAP it appears that if we consider how much TDP is allocated to
a single core, it doesn't look like AMD CPUs are inefficient – the power per core is quite low, relatively. Which is only possible if the cores are efficient enough.
I own an 8350, I can 'opinion away' all I like. I was an amd fan through and through, then they messed up and completely disappointed me and everyone else.
>completely disappointed me and everyone else
>implying
>implying
You are implying too much, sir.
P.S. I totally love it.
Are you telling me that I am completely disappointed with my 8350? Ha ha ha. Please stop trying to speak for people on this thread.
Yeah, what He said. When You, @
RCoon, say "and everyone else", You take on quite a bit of responsibility, Ya know...
These should make great crunchers/folders.
