Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Quad core..phht Amd has a new 8 core desktop cpu

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • tuolumnejim
    I need a LIFE!!
    • Jun 2008
    • 10970

    Quad core..phht Amd has a new 8 core desktop cpu

    I know you Intel guys will go "so", but I really like AMD granted I haven't use an Intel chip since they had the "new" 300mhz unit.

    Just got this in my email from newegg.

    CPU Link
    Main ad link
    In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.
    Publius Cornelius Scipio

    Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.
    ― Thomas Jefferson

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    John Adams
  • #2
    Merc1138
    I need a LIFE!!
    • Feb 2009
    • 19742

    Yeah we know. By the way, it's garbage. Go try reading some benchmarks compared to the previous generation of AMD CPUs, and Intel's current line.

    Comment

    • #3
      Darklyte27
      Calguns Addict
      • May 2008
      • 9372

      Yup more isnt always better
      Im running a sandy bridge 2600k with a ssd drive
      2 HANDGUNS STOLEN! 1 RECOVERED READ HERE

      Chickens

      Want to get into Ham Radio? Click here
      http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=202581

      Comment

      • #4
        Us3rName
        Senior Member
        • Mar 2011
        • 660

        I've been out of the loop

        wasn't there some type of bottle neck in terms of processing capabilities compared to what the storage devices can do?

        basically can we utilize the full potential of the processor?

        Comment

        • #5
          Merc1138
          I need a LIFE!!
          • Feb 2009
          • 19742

          Originally posted by Us3rName
          I've been out of the loop

          wasn't there some type of bottle neck in terms of processing capabilities compared to what the storage devices can do?

          basically can we utilize the full potential of the processor?
          Huh? I'm not sure what storage device speed has to do with the CPU, that would be application specific. Again, using the full potential of the processor depends on whether or not the applications are multi-threaded, even then they need to be optimized to use the total number of cores available(or the OS needs to be able to assign individual processes to each core, which modern OS's can do). So you need multi-threaded applications, or be multi-tasking to take advantage of the additional cores. Neither scenario is something that would really apply to a desktop PC(unless you're trying to play battlefield 3 and encode video at the same time or something).

          Plus, individual SSD drives these days can easily do 300MB/s read 250MB/s write(and some cheating is involved with benchmark applications writing out just zeros with specific block sizes to hit the max of about 550MB/s read and 550MB/s write), that's not including PCI-e based SSD options or SSDs used in a RAID volume.

          Comment

          • #6
            Us3rName
            Senior Member
            • Mar 2011
            • 660

            like I said.

            out of the loop.

            When 64bit OS were starting to roll in was when there were talks on hardware related bottle necking.

            this was when 1gb of ram was $100+

            I just bought 2gb for $60 last week!

            Comment

            • #7
              tuolumnejim
              I need a LIFE!!
              • Jun 2008
              • 10970

              Were some writers saying the same thing about quadcore cpu's being unuseable? Look where we are now, give these a little time to work the bugs out and these are going to be awesome.
              In a state where corruption abounds, laws must be very numerous.
              Publius Cornelius Scipio

              Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.
              ― Thomas Jefferson

              Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
              John Adams

              Comment

              • #8
                paul0660
                In Memoriam
                • Jul 2007
                • 15669

                Competition is a very good thing.

                If there were no Apple, we would still be typing c:/ to start the day.

                If there were no MS, top of the line would be a 150mhz at $3000.
                *REMOVE THIS PART BEFORE POSTING*

                Comment

                • #9
                  choprzrul
                  Calguns Addict
                  • Oct 2009
                  • 6544

                  Question: Which company's processor will benchmark better, a $300 AMD or a $300 Intel? Assuming same bus speeds, memory speeds, etc.

                  .

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    nmerced
                    Veteran Member
                    • Feb 2010
                    • 2673

                    Originally posted by choprzrul
                    Question: Which company's processor will benchmark better, a $300 AMD or a $300 Intel? Assuming same bus speeds, memory speeds, etc.

                    .
                    Right now its Intel but just barely. I'm pretty sure Intel would be coming up with a new line in the near future. The pissing race is never ending.
                    The bullets with my name on it I'm not worried about, it's the "To whom it may concern" ones I'm worried about.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Merc1138
                      I need a LIFE!!
                      • Feb 2009
                      • 19742

                      Originally posted by tuolumnejim
                      Were some writers saying the same thing about quadcore cpu's being unuseable? Look where we are now, give these a little time to work the bugs out and these are going to be awesome.
                      Yes, but when the single core performance of the 6 core CPU(AMD) runs circles around the 8 core CPU(AMD), and the 8 core CPU(AMD) is just barely on par with Intel's middle-end 4 core CPU(sandy bridge) even with mutlithreaded applications, AMD screwed up. Then there is the matter of the power requirements for those additional slow cores. There are no "bugs to be worked out", AMD launched a bad product and is relying on it's marketing team to overcome the mediocre/bad reviews. Hence the garbage like the world record overclock that required 3/4 of the CPU to be disabled to even achieve with no stability or performance testing done.

                      Originally posted by nmerced
                      Right now its Intel but just barely. I'm pretty sure Intel would be coming up with a new line in the near future. The pissing race is never ending.
                      Intel already scheduled their new line(Ivy bridge) to launch in March.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        choprzrul
                        Calguns Addict
                        • Oct 2009
                        • 6544

                        Originally posted by choprzrul
                        Question: Which company's processor will benchmark better, a $300 AMD or a $300 Intel? Assuming same bus speeds, memory speeds, etc.

                        .
                        It might be a forum faux pas, but I am answering my own question as it made me curious enough to go look.

                        Using Passmark's benchmark tool scores, I compared 2 identically priced processors. AMD prices didn't go to $300, so I used their highest priced processor from Newegg. I then looked up an Intel processor that matched the price and cross referenced both of them on Passmark's page.

                        For your review:

                        $189.99 Intel Core i5-2400: Passmark CPU = 6137

                        $189.99 AMD Phenom II X6 1100T: Passmark CPU = 6306

                        CPU Benchmarks

                        In a world where money is no object, Intel wins the speed wars. I don't live in such a world. So, if I have $189.99 to spend, and I want the fasted processor for that price, AMD wins.

                        If I have a pocket full of cast to blow, Intel wins.

                        .

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Merc1138
                          I need a LIFE!!
                          • Feb 2009
                          • 19742

                          Originally posted by choprzrul
                          It might be a forum faux pas, but I am answering my own question as it made me curious enough to go look.

                          Using Passmark's benchmark tool scores, I compared 2 identically priced processors. AMD prices didn't go to $300, so I used their highest priced processor from Newegg. I then looked up an Intel processor that matched the price and cross referenced both of them on Passmark's page.

                          For your review:

                          $189.99 Intel Core i5-2400: Passmark CPU = 6137

                          $189.99 AMD Phenom II X6 1100T: Passmark CPU = 6306

                          CPU Benchmarks

                          In a world where money is no object, Intel wins the speed wars. I don't live in such a world. So, if I have $189.99 to spend, and I want the fasted processor for that price, AMD wins.

                          If I have a pocket full of cast to blow, Intel wins.

                          .
                          Umm, from the site you linked:

                          AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core Score = 8628 $279.99 on newegg
                          Intel Core i7-2600 score = 8965 $299.99 on newegg
                          Intel Core i7-2600k score = 10020 $314.99 on newegg

                          I don't consider a product announced last year, and launched 10 months after Intel released the i7-2600(with half the cores)that can't beat it in performance(but costs a whole $20 less) to be worthwhile. When you're talking about a $20 price difference, it's hardly an issue of money being no object.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            choprzrul
                            Calguns Addict
                            • Oct 2009
                            • 6544

                            Originally posted by Merc1138
                            Umm, from the site you linked:

                            AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core Score = 8628 $279.99 on newegg
                            Intel Core i7-2600 score = 8965 $299.99 on newegg
                            Intel Core i7-2600k score = 10020 $314.99 on newegg

                            I don't consider a product announced last year, and launched 10 months after Intel released the i7-2600(with half the cores)that can't beat it in performance(but costs a whole $20 less) to be worthwhile. When you're talking about a $20 price difference, it's hardly an issue of money being no object.
                            I was just trying to use an exact apples to apples example based solely upon price. As the price difference increases, so does the benchmark values, as demonstrated in your example.

                            .

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              natrab
                              Member
                              • Dec 2005
                              • 301

                              And FYI, Microcenter still has the 2600k for $279. That's where I got mine.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1