You keep saying this in a lot of your posts, but it is one of luxury.
People can turn off superfluous applications when gaming for better performance.
You often say get more cores than you need for when multitasking etc, but you never seem to acknowledge that it is possible to just have the application that you are using open.
In reality you are always going to be doing more than one thing and running more than one program.
Don't believe me? simply open up msconfig and look at what loads up. then load up task manager and look at all of the underworkings of Windows that are also running.
In this day and age we all have to use AV software. Well again, the more cores you have the more Windows works the cores and distributes the load evenly.
Gaming benchmarks are usually done on a rig with a completely fresh install of Windows running absolutely nothing. It isn't a realistic representation of what a computer actually has to do in someone's house.
I run an 8 core Xeon clocked to 2ghz and it absolutely decimates the 4670k in OSX. The benchmark results are over double what the 4670k can do.
MACs have been using multiple CPUs and cores for years. It's actually stock standard on a MAC to be using more than one CPU and this goes all the way back to the days of a dual G4 machine. They weren't just there for fun...
Today? it's bonkers to suggest that a dual core CPU of any stature can beat a 6 core CPU with reasonable core performance. When I say reasonable I mean, when overclocked the 6300 can actually stand up there with the Core I7 920. In fact, in certain tests it will beat it.
That's a lot of CPU for £70 odd. Vishera was a good refresh from AMD and bought a 15% gain over Bulldozer, and Windows 8 actually knows how to use more than four cores and address them properly, unlike Windows 7. Windows 7, even on Intel will require all sorts of hacks like core parking to get the OS to see them properly.
So if anything the FX series are now better than ever. Too good for a dual core CPU no matter how fast it runs.
I maintain. If Intel released a cheapish dual core with HT then it could actually compete with the 6300. It still wouldn't beat it in heavily threaded tests due to the sheer numbers of the cores. Only the 4670k can beat it convincingly and it costs over double the price !
It's Intel's fault. No one else's. Maybe they are legally bound not to kill off AMD due to monopoly laws? maybe they really are just that greedy and tight?
Who knows?
But I will hold firm on this one. The 6300 will laugh at the Pentium.
