Originally Posted by mdocod
There's nothing wrong with comparing a subaru to a mclaren.. Top Gear does it all the time. Everyone knows they have different prices and that is all part of the comparison. 4WD doesn't mean the subaru is better at everything. The idea being conveyed here, is that having more cores doesn't make a CPU better in and of itself, as the 8 core AMD chips are only competing with 4 core Intel chips in most cases.
Yes you can compare a subaru to a mclaren, but does that make much sense? Not in the slightest, they are for different people and different workloads. I wasn't saying the 8 core was better than the 4 core, I'm saying comparing a top of the line i7 makes very little sense to compare it to an fx 8350.
Read about SMT vs CMT scaling. Both technologies work great. Intels implementation involves much shorter pipline and very high IPC from a single thread per dual-threaded core and minor (up to ~30%) scaling from SMT. AMD implementation involves a longer pipeline, lower IPC from a single thread per module, and high (up to ~80% or better) scaling from CMT. Both technologies are deviations from the traditional CPU "core" from years past.
Utter trash and absolute bollocks. Hyper threading does not improve IPC and does not involve a shorter pipeline. Hyper threading simply uses the same cache and execution areas as a normal core. It is out of order execution to improve multitasking, it does not improve IPC in any possible way.
AMD doesn't need a participation trophy or a fairness doctrine to offer a competitive alternative. I would be insulted if I were AMD and enthusiasts were stooping to this sort of apologetic excuses mentality. The FX chip can compete on it's own merit when it is priced correctly (which it is) and implemented by users who can appreciate and/or take advantage of it's strengths and/or novelties.
I'm not saying it needs a "participation trophy" or a "fairness doctrine". I'm simply stating that the top end CPU from AMD is two years old now, it should be very obvious that intel is able to improve on its cpus, while AMD hasn't changed since then.
You are acting absolutely silly, this isn't a mentality, it's bloody logic to understand that in two years can make a lot of a difference. You're basically telling me it is stupid to say that a pentium 4 user should suck it up and not need logic when comparing to a core 2 duo, one much older than the other, similar to the fx 8350 vs i7 4770k or the i7 970. Those 3 CPUs also were for different markets, and the funny thing is the i7 970 barely beats out the fx.
I would hardly call Intel stagnating. They have maintained steady increases in all key areas of CPU performance over the last 5 years. IPC is up, efficiency is up, parallel workload performance is up, single threaded performance is up, FPU performance is up, integer instruction performance is up, iGPU performance is up. Every new generation of CPUs from them has seen an improvement in every area without any regressions of performance. Compare the performance of the i7-4770 with the i7-950. That's a ~+75% performance improvement in 4 years without any additional parallelism required all while working up against the confines of semi-conductor tech that isn't improving.
If you looked past blatant fanboyism for a moment, you'd realize that intel HAS been stagnating, performance gains have dropped significantly since AMD stopped competing well. Please show me benchmarks from a reliable source that shows the the i7 4770k is nearly double as fast as the i7 950, because I haven't found any. Considering semi-conductor tech has been improving both with different methods and die shrinking, that statement is invalid.
Yes AMD processors are definitely worse than intel ones. But the arguments you have provided are absolute and total bollocks.