Originally Posted by Ceadderman;15362007
I might have misinterpreted something along the way on the IGP front. If so, my bad I'm wrong on that. Still there isn't a lot of benches that can be done that put BD through it's paces.
Now if you want to test 6 Core against any Thubbie that makes sense. Because even with HT progs there should be some kind of division between them.
There aren't any 8 core progs though so testing BD against HT chips is a bit lopsided against the AMD CPU.
Personally I think that AMD is sticking to this build model to encourage developers to write progs that will use more than 3 or 4 cores. HT doesn't do that. HT encourages developers to stick to the HT plan. Someday they'll figure out 1 core is better than 2 virtual cores. I'm hoping it's someday soon. Imagine games that use 4 cores being the norm instead of the exception to the rule.
You're not making any sense.
If there wasn't any software that could take advantage of Bulldozer's 8 cores, wouldn't the CPU be useless in the real world ? I mean, AMD does not have the financial resources to wait until programmers catch up and people all over the world buy new software that takes advantage of this architecture.
Now, as some posters already said, Folding @ Home and Cinebench do take advantange of 8 cores. Software is not made to take advantage of Bulldozer's specific configuration ? Guess what, Microsoft still hasn't made a thread scheduler intelligent enough to first allocate full cores to games running on Intel CPUs with HT enabled, and only then, if needed, allocate the virtual cores.
Guess what, a lot of games perform worse on the 2600k versus the 2500k, and mind you that the 2600k has a 100 Mhz clockspeed advantage and 2 MB L3 extra cache. And this is Intel we are talking about. They know lots of programs and the OS still don't take proper advantage of HT, and they know it so well that they only have two models (2600 and 2600k) in their current quad core lineup that have HT.
And this is Intel we are talking about. Honestly, what was AMD thinking ? That they could arm wrestle the whole industry into using their specific core implementation overnight ? LOL. Intel has had CPU's with HT since 2002, and look where they still are.
AMD screwed up. Period. They are advertising their chip as having more speed, more cores, more cache, and it is all meaningless. They have a chip that is clocked faster but is slower than an i7 2600k, that has more cores but performs worse, that has 7 MB more cache than an i7 2600k and it performs worse. (Btw the caches in the FX have worse latencies than the Phenom II X4 Deneb. They were going in the right direction with Thuban, which had better latencies).
They released a chip with a 125w TDP and it performs worse than a chip with a 95w TDP with an IGP included. Guess what, if Intel wanted, they could remove the IGP and add 4 full cores, for an 8 core chip with a 130w TDP. Where would that leave Bulldozer ?
And you know why Intel doesn't want to do that ? Because it doesn't need to. AMD keeps screwing up, meaning no competition. They have a good design with Thuban, why didn't they just improve upon it ?Edited by tpi2007 - 10/18/11 at 8:34pm