Originally Posted by Electroneng
AMD FX 8320/8350 chips have 8 real integer "cores"
4 real FP "cores"
so they call it 8 cores.
So they share resources. Somewhat similar to a hyper threaded 4 core intel chip.
The logic that it isn't an 8 core due to its 4 FP pipelines means that anything before the 486 didn't have a core...As the FPU was on a separate chip, if even in the PC.
Besides, the FPs are 256bit but can be split into 2x128bit which means it effectively is 8 FP cores....and literally 90% of what people do is generally going to be Integer tasks.
Originally Posted by Darkpriest667
because AMD "8 cores" are really 4 cores with hardware hyperthreading
Then were the 8086, 186, 286 and 386 CPUs? They didn't have cores by the definition you need to use in order to say that.
Originally Posted by WorldExclusive
The whole AMD optimized stuff is just marketing. Don't outsmart yourself.
While I doubt the consoles are going to mean much for AMDs CPUs being more optimized for, you do realize that Intel's compiler bias is bad enough that AMD goes from competing with an i7 in quite a number of benchmarks to competing with the i5 when you compare Linux (Mostly GCC and unbiased) to Windows (Mostly ICC and biased) and that's after BD was designed to work with the poor codepaths ICC provides AMD and VIA CPUs?
Originally Posted by Anonymous->Object
DDR4 Memory is not going to be cheap. I suspect 16GB will run up around the $200 range if not more.
This is going to be a very expensive platform.
Hence why the smarter consumer will wait for the inevitable insanely low DRAM prices with Broadwell-E, or possibly Skylake-E unless they don't need to worry about money and need the extra performance now.
Originally Posted by azanimefan
anyone thinking a 6 or 8 core intel with hyper-threading will go for less then 1k per chip is smoking something. This is intel we're talking about. They have zero competition from AMD... this chip will cost a grand (min) the motherboard will run 300 (min) and if its the first system with native ddr4 support on the market the ram will cost $30 to $50 per gig.
What's the point of getting an i7 5820k (Haswell-e low-end chip, like the 3820 and 4820k are/will be respectively) if it's literally a 4770k? The 3820 gets a pass because SB in general is amazing compared to previous chips, the 4820k gets a pass because it's now unlocked and may mean a decently priced Ivy i7 that doesn't need delidding to get a great OC...The Haswell-E one won't be much faster than the Ivy and may clock lower.
Originally Posted by iamhollywood5
This Haswell-E might be awesome for various things but for purely gaming, I think AMD will take the lead pretty soon. Why? As previously stated, both new consoles have AMD CPUs that consist of 4 modules / 8 "cores". But what hasn't been mentioned yet is Crysis 3. That game was not only optimized for AMD GPUs, but also AMD CPUs. Does anyone remember how the FX-8350 edged the i7 3770K in Crysis 3 performance? Investigations showed all 8 "cores" in the FX being fully utilized while the virtual cores in the i7 were hardly loaded. Crytek designed the game to run best on AMD's architecture, which was a first. Currently most games are designed for the traditional 1 FP and 1 integer per core design, but pretty soon, any game designed for either console as the lead platform will be built to make the most out of AMD's modules.
I think AMD's next-gen top-teir DT CPU will be a little better at gaming, but Haswell-E will be better at just about everything else =P
Crysis 3 is merely optimized to use "MOAR CORES" as everyone likes to put it, as of the latest patch the i7 comes in ahead with the FX second and i5 third.
Originally Posted by WorldExclusive
I don't want Intel to skip Ivy-E becuase it's like the 22nm Beta for 2011. Let them workout the heat and chipset issues with Ivy-E, so Haswell can be smooth sailing.
That didn't work well for Haswell on 1150, it clocks worse than Ivy.
Originally Posted by TheBlademaster01
220W is pretty difficult to cool on air...
Anyone with an highly OCed FX or possibly Intel Hexacore on air is doing it as routine, and the 220w is most likely an over-rating as both intel and AMD do that, afterall it's better for your heatsink to be able to cool more than it needs to at worst.