High core count processors

Alphane

Alphane

Alphane

Associate
Joined
8 Dec 2008
Posts
997
Location
Liverpool
Well just been playing around with the benchmark test site Stulid was good enough to link me to.

Now I came across this comparison 6 vs 8 cores

They seem to be nearly identical.

What have AMD done to manage that?

Or is it more related to the fact software won't take advantage of so many cores, if so is this liely to change and 8 cores come into there own?
 
Lol. Well that's the problem everyone is finding with those new CPUs, hence Intel is doing well atm!

From what I can tell, the software can't yet take advantage of it, but it has potential. There are a few threads on that in the CPU section. (they are called Bulldozer CPUs btw - the FX range)
 
The processors need a new scheduler to work properly, it should come in windows 8.
However the processor has other problems apart from this. Such great potential, such little performance :(
 
I thought it was quite highly publicised that 6 and 8 plus cores are likely to perform no better than those of a quad simply because the lack of multi-threaded applications available, particularly in games where they have been designed for consoles. Used as a server or server apps is a different story.
 
You are currently far better off with 4 fast cores than 6/8 slower cores. This will change of course. Much like when duals went to quads. Anyway, I believe the 8 core AMD chips aren't even true 8 cores. Just a souped up quad (a bit like hyperthreading). Oh and 1000 posts for me :D
 
4 core 2500K v 8 core bulldozer

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/288?vs=434

I was previously an AMD fanboi dating back to the 850 @ 1 gig TBIRD days. This however is an utterly pathetic showing from AMD from something that had so much potential

Moreover thats a 170 quid CPU v a 220 quid CPU with the more expensive one being worse even though it has twice the number of cores.

In the words of Lt Commander Data........... Does not compute
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom