Originally Posted by Iceman23
Of course I read your post, your method of comparison is faulty, as I've said. I also based my comparison off of end results, how is video encoding performance not an and result?
In order to determine without a doubt if more cores have an end result of greater performance, we must compare processors that are the same in all other aspects (not really possible), or at the very least, in the same family. Do you know how scientists conduct experiments? They control all other aspects while changing one factor. Otherwise your results are not legitimate. The fact that you've determined cores do not matter shows me this.
There is NO POINT comparing Thubans to quad-core SB when determining the validity of hex core and multi-core designs. The performance differences are largely due to the architecture advantages of the SB processors.
And once again woosh. Is this really so far over your head you cannot understand even after I've explained it to you?
Also, lol at your little tirade on objective comparison. Please, just hold your tongue. Flaunting will get you no where, especially when you reveal such idealistic inexperience with the topic.
You insist that I've been stating number of cores is universally unimportant, despite the fact that I've given clear context in the original text, re-stated and explained my intent upon my first response, and quoted myself once with important context in bold. Once more, I am comparing cores in regard to BD vs. Sandy Bridge.
Ok, go ahead, continue to deviate. And as much as I hate to say it, strawman much? The point was never to question the validity of multi-core designs, it was to question your valuing of a CPU with 8-cores.
From a realistic standpoint, 8-cores at $320 is nothing impressive when the competition may be able to offer the same performance at the same price, regardless of different design.