Quote:
Originally Posted by sswilson  If they want to call it a core cluster then fine, that works for me, just don't call each individual unit a core unless it has all the resources it needs to act independantly. The main problem (IMO) with BD's release was that what they were calling an 8 core unit could barely hold it's own against their own previous hexacores. I also don't see how intel's naming convention isn't honest about the number of cores... it's clearly stated that hyperthreading is not a full fledged core and listed as 4 cores / 8 threads.
Now, OTOH, if (and I don't see why they shouldn't be able to demonstrate this) AMD processors can perform more simultaneous "low/medium usage" threads without a performance penalty then quite frankly there's probably a strong market for that as most folks aren't like us enthusiasts and they aren't running their gear @ 100%. Maybe we need to rethink how we benchmark, or at the very least attempt to come up with a method of testing general "snappiness" under medium loads rather than only looking at max loads. |
NOW you've hit the nail on head !! .... This is the biggest problem nowadays is that there is not 1 test that can be ran that is not somehow influenced/optimized by Intel/Amd/Nvidia ...... Thats why for the most part I refer back to as skymtl has shown ...... fraps as a defaulter of things. Same as my argument with why nvidia drivers sometime preform better cause there optimized to run based on clock rates of a cpu & not the driver itself allowing the cpu indipendantly affect preformance.