Originally Posted by adridu59
Proof? Per-core handling of workloads is about as good for both CPU manufacturers, plus Intel CPUs have significantly better efficiency. I'm not looking to make bold statements but I was willing to point out the known advantages -- that's something that must be taken into account.
It does. Maximum +20% depending on the computation, and these aren't hurt by the shared memory like on Bulldozer cores, which are all cut-down, physical but still cut-down. An FX-8350 almost catches up a 4770k for heavy computations like video encoding but that's about it - and which a largely lower power consumption - and it's not the kind of thing you mainly except from a daily rig right.
But why discuss theorical things, reviews already did all the benchmarks and analysis.
Someone who owns an AMD CPU made a patch out for that and it appears that Intel has stopped doing it:
ICC 11 basically came out on late 2011
. So I don't think that games are affected anymore by that and out of those games we don't even know how many use ICC for compiling.
Can you post a proof article or something for this claim?
It's a bit surprising you're saying this because Hyperthreading handling happens just like any other multicore CPU (i7 with HT appears as 8 Core for the OS) and if anything the scheduling is done by OS layer. Bulldozer was first affected by this and Microsoft had to change the FX scheduler logic on the OS to take into account the modules - since they are cut down cores 2-by-2 the optimized way to schedule is 1 thread per modules prioritized (one core out of two) and similar threads on a module. That's just a part of the updates that were published at the time but that's basically it for the scheduler part.
Future-proof.... those who bought 990FX motherboards before Bulldozer came out made a future-proof decision, and a pretty bad one. Then people said software patches would change the game... honestly the scheduler updates benefits were 1-2% and it's not even me who says it
(I post links to back up some of my claims and I think you should do the same). -- future-proof is generally a bad idea in computing anyways, only consoles can really embrace this concept, the rest evolves fast.
And yes a 3570k, because games don't make use of Hyperthreading just google for some "i5 vs i7 benchmarks" you will see why most people looking to build a gaming rig are choosing i5s. Now why Ivy Bridge and not Haswell, well Ivy Bridge is a tad cheaper and on the performance side Haswell didn't bring much improvements, they rather focused where they need to with mobile, power consumption and IGP.
i respect your analysis on the situation and i definitely HAVE NOT seen that article for the compilers so i will take that with alot of salt , but you are STILL not getting my main point as to why he should go with amd now.
If you had of debated with me on this specific topic about 6 months ago i would have hands down agreed with you on intel.
I mean seriously they have a good advantage they are on a much smaller manufacturing die than AMD ( reason why the more power efficient ) they have made themselves a standard so they have there pushed there hardware as a premium to optimize for , and they have been slowly but surely been working and slowly improving on THE SAME architecture forever now unlike amd which changed it all up and tried something new with its FX series.
So let me break it all down take a look at these crysis 3 benchmarks for example
while of course generally having better ipc and the boosts from HT intel manages to pull ahead (with a huge price premium)amd is not too far behind nipping at its heals even with all the disadvantages that the FX series has. And as i stated before intel has hyperthreading patented which is why you dont see amd using it (imaging an 8 core with HT enabled?) DAT THREAD COUNT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading
,if that isnt enough just type in why amd doesn't use hyperthreading.
so from that we can see that when games are PROPERLY threaded amd stops performing like crap compared to intel.
Now my point is that games coming out (within the next year sony has already been working with developers to properly optimize there engines with the amd hardware there console is coming with)
i mean games are already starting to jump on the multi threaded bandwagon if even at an early stage
Ohh and i made a mistake with the opengl / hsa thing amd change it to HUMA but regardless that will only give the next batch of APU's a huge performance boost not the FX line .
and as for the OPENgl it was indeed stated by sony that the ps4 was going to use opengl vs dx11 (which would have imo been better ) but its seems that they have either changed it or its up in the air.
More evidence on games and developers talking about optimizing for multi threaded games
but regardless of all that my main point is that we are already getting to the point where game engines will become heavily multi threaded ( there's just to many pro's to doing this) the i5 as you stated doesnt even have HT ,and while games will most definitely not make intels strong cores falter ( that ipc and die shrink does wonders ) ,when games start getting heavily threaded which is the ONLY area in which amd shines (and even outshines) against intel i really have to judge going with that i5 thats already soooo close to the 8350 with little to no optimizations.
so my main point is what happens when GOD studios like naughty dog release a new game maximizing the ps4 architecture? Im not bashing intel because of next gen console both amd and intel with benefit (everyone gets a beer) intel will still be in the lead for the high end but as far as the middle end where there close to neck and neck amd will definitely benefit greatly.
After all this if you still cant see why then i give up (fanboys are hard to convince).