Not with really highly threaded workloads...
Just registered to troll a little..?..
Not trying to troll at all. However I'm assuming an OC'd 3770K as I wouldn't see the reason to buy one if you're not going to OC it.
Not with really highly threaded workloads...
Just registered to troll a little..?..
Not with really highly threaded workloads...
Not trying to troll at all. However I'm assuming an OC'd 3770K as I wouldn't see the reason to buy one if you're not going to OC it.
You are right , this is an overclock dedicated i7 , so let s see how it fares
if overclocked to death at higher frequency than an overclocked FX....
Highly threaded workloads aint enough. It needs to be highly threaded workloads with almost perfect scalability.
No , it could also be a few tasks that are each taking advantage
of only 3 or 4 cores.....
OC'd to death? Lol. How about some gaming comparisons?
Changing the subject to escape the debate...??..
You clearly claimed the 3770K being better in an answer to a member
that did explicitly talk of multithread usage.
Add abit of serial code in the mix, and the performance of the FX drops significantly, nomatter the thread amount.
Are we talking of multithread/multitask or of single thread/serial code.??.
Seems once something doesnt suit your spining theories you have
to bring again the single thread perf as the ultimate bench...
Excuse me for not knowing the parameters of said argument had been oh so narrowed. However, your reply showed the with both chips OC'd the 3770K still pulled ahead. Now if you have test results comparing them clock for clock when OC'd to shut me up, I will gladly take a seat.
You realize that at same frequencies the 8350 would be largely
as fast as the 3770K in the mentionned test ?...
You failed to see that in these MT tasks the 3770K has at least
300mhz frequency advantage but still , you re talking as if the frequencies
are reversed....
Talk of being blindly biaised...
The 3770k (for $229 at MC) spits all over the FX-8350.
Highly threaded workloads aint enough. It needs to be highly threaded workloads with almost perfect scalability. And then we are down to something like <1% of all multithreaded applications.
Are Tom's results blindly biased?
Lolz , only adobe ??...
Amount of serial code also dictates the possible maximum speedup compared to cores.
It would be much better if you could drop the bad attitude.
We are talking multithreaded applications.
A real life example where the FX8350 loses out due to abit of serial code in the multithreaded application is chess.
As you can see the application scales with cores, even 16 threads as shown here.
Dont let parallel and serial code confuse you with singlethreaded and multithreaded.
Amount of serial code also dictates the possible maximum speedup compared to cores.
The problem is ignorance from your end about Amdahl's law.The FX exceed your graph s 6 fold speed up for 8C.....
So what is wrong , FX or your graph..??....:sneaky:
There's a reason I posted the link, I wasn't going to link 30 different URLs.
Surely , but anyway , congratulation for the wide range of benchs
in the four pictures you posted....
The problem is ignorance from your end about Amdahl's law.
http://home.wlu.edu/~whaleyt/classes/parallel/topics/amdahl.html
It comes down to, do you want something that's a LOT better at just about everything, or something that might be a tiny bit better at a very small number of things. Most people would choose the former, the other people like to simply support AMD and pretend that everything they do is optomized to run better on an FX processor.
83XX performs way better for what i what it to do then a 3770 and a K cant do it. Where do i fit in your over generalization. i buy the best $/perf processor for my needs, my desktops an I7, my servers an FX yet im just pretending .
What do you use your server for mostly?