Quote:
Originally Posted by BizzareRide 
Whats Cinemark?
Also, the Core i7 940 in your comparison is clocked at 2.93Ghz versus 3.9Ghz for the FX 8150 and yet it still loses. AMD has a long ways to go to be competitive in IPC. They are far more competitive, yet ultimately still behind, in multithreaded applications.
Based on every benchmark, SNB's IPC is on average 18-20% faster than Nehalem and IVB is, on average, 5-10% faster than SNB.
If Piledriver is 15% faster than PH2, then Thuban owners can finally upgrade.
Whats Cinemark?
Also, the Core i7 940 in your comparison is clocked at 2.93Ghz versus 3.9Ghz for the FX 8150 and yet it still loses. AMD has a long ways to go to be competitive in IPC. They are far more competitive, yet ultimately still behind, in multithreaded applications.
Based on every benchmark, SNB's IPC is on average 18-20% faster than Nehalem and IVB is, on average, 5-10% faster than SNB.
If Piledriver is 15% faster than PH2, then Thuban owners can finally upgrade.
The FX-8150 is clocked at 3.6ghz but that's besides the point. I compared a product with a similar price point at launch. If I had compared clock for clock, then it would have been a $1000 cpu vs a $260 cpu
And yes the FX-8150 does lose but my point, as was originally stated, is it's not far behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by HMBR
the socket was different, the architecture and process was the same (for the 8xx and 7xx at least) with some minor changes,
first gen i7 = 9xx/8xx
first gen i5 = 7xx/6xx
first gen i3 = 5xx
the socket was different, the architecture and process was the same (for the 8xx and 7xx at least) with some minor changes,
first gen i7 = 9xx/8xx
first gen i5 = 7xx/6xx
first gen i3 = 5xx
Now that makes sense. Thank you.
Edited by computerparts - 5/6/12 at 2:26pm
