those 12 core/8 core amd cpus

[FatRakoon]

FX-8### CPU's are just not anything like as bad as people make out.

I went from one to a 4670K and bar very few games it made no difference what-so-ever, actually some parts of Crysis 3 the FX-8### is faster.

Bingo!

Plus, and I have seen this so many times that I want to scream out, but so many people compare the top end Intel with the top end AMD, and then use that as an excuse to completely put AMD down, and then they go out and buy an Intel that not only costs more than the AMD, but is actually slower too! - they would have been far better off just buying the AMD!

There are so many idiots that think they know the score, that its almost laughable... IF it wasn't so sad.

 

[Quartz]

How do the 12 core amd cpus fare against say an intel i5 2500k cpu for multi tasking on say adobe photoshop, fireworks, 24 tab chrome, 15 tab forefox, tv running on tvcatchup.co.uk etc.

I can't speak for AMD CPUs but my brother does reservoir modelling and has truly massive Excel spreadsheets. Now Excel is multithreaded and he has seen significant improvements going from 16 to 24 cores or more. Indeed, he's redesigned the spreadsheets to take advantage of this.

 

[h4rm0ny]

tht's the crux of the matter. windows 10 and any other traditional desktop OS, let alone professional editing suits do not utilise cores beyond 4 cores. Because 4 cores is a current norm,

as uscool points out his 32 core machine only utilised 4/5 cores. the os would rather exhust the 4/5 cores and hit a computing bottleneck and then slow down than use the other cores.

Windows 10 does work well with multi-cores, it just seldom needs to. Even two cores of a modern chip (and I'm including the FX-8350) are enough for it to carry out day to day tasks. And the things that do take a long time on Windows 10 like copying many files? That's usually because the bottleneck is elsewhere.

AMD gambled badly with Bulldozer. They thought software would catch up to using multiple cores much more quickly. For the most part, it didn't. Their design is actually a valid one and not bad - it's just designed for a world that didn't exist. Ironically, now that the architecture is nearing the end of its lifespan, it's actually becoming more current! :/

In any case, Intel certainly make the more powerful CPUs, but you have to spend a lot of money elsewhere (e.g. maxing out your GPU), or be doing specialist work, before your CPU becomes the bottleneck in your workflow.

Don't get me wrong - the above is a general rule. You get the odd game for example, that isn't well written and the CPU is the bottleneck. But for the most part the above holds true.