Originally Posted by whtchocla7e
You're completely right because it's better to have N slow cores than N fast cores....
That would make sense if FX 4000 series was priced to compete with Intel Quad. We can start a debate about what an AMD module is, but the fact remains it's closer to two cores than one since it has two integer units and basically a hyperthreaded FPU.
Originally Posted by Tsumi
Seems like everyone forgot about AVX2...
I know it's not relevant to most current software, but what about the programs that are able to take advantage of it? Intel claims that it should have something like a 2x improvement over AVX.
AVX2 is useless for games. See below, where Intel guys are throwing around Skyrim, a game that doesn't even use SSE and uses x87 instead. Just a reminder of how slow adoption of new instructions is, Intel has been telling everyone for the last 10+ years to stop using x87. And it's still getting used.
Originally Posted by A Bad Day
Windows' Task Manager usually attempts to split up the load over as many cores as possible, which usually prevents turbo boost for poorly threaded games from kicking in.
It would be interesting to see if core parking Windows patch would help Intel CPUs @ stock, as it would stop things from bouncing around and let it turbo better.
Originally Posted by vampirr
When I see Intel fans quoting Skyrim, Starcraft 2, League Of Legends, World of Warcraft and other games that use 2 or less cores then simply I have this to say:
In this thread we basically have one person going "everyone is forgetting about AVX2!" and then another person going "hey, look how bad AMD is at running this game that uses x87 instead of SSE!" Haslel more than likely had the x87 guts ripped out of it, which is why x87 code shows regressions some times (all those Pi programs) or barely any improvement. I would imagine that Haswell Skyrim benchmarks would be one of the worst ones for Haswell.
It's a nice twist, the guys who run around stomping on the competition and showing Skyrim benchmarks are going to be throwing around a benchmark that's weakest on Intel's new micro-arch.
Originally Posted by 2010rig
I've been on the same boat as you, and really haven't found a reason to upgrade.
The only reason I'm considering a 4770K is because I have to build a second rig, otherwise, I would ride out this 930 a bit longer. I run it at 4GHZ 24/7, and can easily hit 4.2. Clock your CPU to 4.0 GHZ or so.
Wow, someone who isn't intoxicated on Intel Magic Marketing Fairy Dust. Intel sure managed to get people to think that Sandy Bridge was a massive jump over Nehalem by comparing 3.4ghz/3.8ghz 2600k to 2.66ghz/2.7ghz Nehalem. That nearly 30% clockspeed advantage for SB really made it look a lot better than it was.
Originally Posted by A Bad Day
There was also someone who noticed that when they did a video rendering while playing BF3, the game stuttered on the i5 3750K. When he switched over to a quad-module FX, the stuttering disappeared.
People who are infatuated with single core performance remind me of those guys in the beginning of the dual core era that trash talked dual cores non-stop. Now we all pretty much have at least quads, because you need them.
The Intel guys who throw around old benchmarks are only hurting themselves, because the AMD guys respond with new games that are properly threaded and, to put it bluntly, are better programmed. They don't realize it yet but they're basically saying they don't care about new games, they only care about old games and that their chips are only meant for playing old, poorly optimized games.
My problem with this is that it encourages game developers to create lazy console ports, because it doesn't matter as PC guys will be happy with them.