Not only did people say the same thing about quads when Ph I came out, they said the same thing about dual cores when the A64 X2 came out.
Yea I bet grandma is really going after an 8 core processor.
What about the 95% of people who never use a program that utilizes more than 4 cores?
Clever marketing by AMD, but not a real-world situation.
If Grandma uses IE8+ or Chrome then she is using a program that does utilize more than 4 cores. Especially if you mix in running apps/video with Flash, Silverlight, or Java inside the browser.
No, this is not true, they are all full cores. Every integer core has its own FP unit (actually a more powerful FMAC.)
It will be 8 cores, 8 threads.
A BD module has 2 cores but , comparing 4 BD module to 4 I7 core + 4 Ht threads is not apples to apples comparison because of huge difference in design philosophy of both the BD & I7 processors.
I guess the best way to compare performance is to compare die size of 1 BD module vs die size of 1 I7 core + ht thread for that core.
Ya AMD said the same about Phenom I didn't they . Slides are still in those old topics.
People said the same thing about Quad cores two years ago
Right. But the architecture has been released by AMD and there are some clear design informations, showing that Bulldozer will double the core count (simplified), in addition it is known that Bulldozer will run at 4-5 GHz (4.5 GHz would be a good guess which comes from 3.2 GHz * 23 / 17 [pipeline design FO4 count] + 5% [from 32 nm]).You seem very certain about something that hasn't been released, much less benchmarked.
The beauty is that they are about the same.I guess the best way to compare performance is to compare die size of 1 BD module vs die size of 1 I7 core + ht thread for that core.
Right. But the architecture has been released by AMD and there are some clear design informations, showing that Bulldozer will double the core count (simplified), in addition it is known that Bulldozer will run at 4-5 GHz (4.5 GHz would be a good guess which comes from 3.2 GHz * 23 / 17 [pipeline design FO4 count] + 5% [from 32 nm]).
It is quite a simple assumption that double of cores will give 70-100% gain. That is something we know already. So nothing magic with that. That is why one can be certain at least if overall performance is regarded. If it is better in a certain application or another I really can't tell. That and the exact performance gain within that range has to be shown by benchmarking the released product. As current rumors indicate, it would be at the high end of this range, but that is just based on rumors.
er, uh, you dont fire your ceo for producing a chip that outperforms the competition by 50%
His removal/firing/resignation/whatever likely had nothing to do with any single product at all and more to do with business strategy differences between him and the board.
Whoever can open up the bottleneck of GTX 580 Tri-SLI at 2500x1600 (or equivalent-level performance) will win my money. At that resolution, and with those cards, the best i7 processor is still a hard bottleneck in a number of games, according to GURU3D.com.
Whoever can open up the bottleneck of GTX 580 Tri-SLI at 2500x1600 (or equivalent-level performance) will win my money. At that resolution, and with those cards, the best i7 processor is still a hard bottleneck in a number of games, according to GURU3D.com.
An eight core cpu is faster than a four core cpu.
Huh, who woulda guessed?