Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Rumor Mill (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/rumor-mill/)
-   -   FX-8150 vs 1100T vs 2600K Chart (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/rumor-mill/46919-fx-8150-vs-1100t-vs-2600k-chart.html)

EmptyMellon October 1, 2011 03:51 PM

FX-8150 vs 1100T vs 2600K Chart
 
"This Computer" in the chart is a 2600K
http://tof.canardpc.com/view/4f528cd...709dd9c627.jpg

Source: AMD Zambezi news, info, fans ! - Page 138

Keywork October 1, 2011 05:00 PM

Not baaadddddd........not baaaaad at all..... assuming it's remotely accurate.

EmptyMellon October 1, 2011 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keywork (Post 553972)
Not baaadddddd........not baaaaad at all..... assuming it's remotely accurate.

Well, hopefully we'll find out this...month.:whistle:

GT7R October 2, 2011 12:58 AM

Can't understand why it can possibly be slower than the 1100T in some tests... it can't be that the per core performance is lower than the 1100...

roh_ultima October 2, 2011 07:53 AM

because some things still run on only 1 core

GT7R October 2, 2011 08:54 AM

Exactly, which means the individual core of a 1100T (which by itself is nothing special) is more powerful than one from BD....

EmptyMellon October 2, 2011 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT7R (Post 554119)
Exactly, which means the individual core of a 1100T (which by itself is nothing special) is more powerful than one from BD....

Most likely, something to do with a fact that they did not have an updated UEFI/BIOS; so the final/release day numbers (i.e. HWC Review) will be a weee bit higher...then again they main not since the new BD "interger core" is not a true core; where (2) BD threads are like (1.7) "cores", so not true (2) whole cores.

Hence, as BD has been rumored so far to be a multi-threading beast, but a single threaded looser.

Nodscene October 2, 2011 11:37 AM

I'm obviously missing something here but although BD aren't true cores so to speak (1.7 or whatever per 2 threads), aren't Intel's worse using this standard as it's only 1 core per 2 threads?

EmptyMellon October 2, 2011 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodscene (Post 554149)
I'm obviously missing something here but although BD aren't true cores so to speak (1.7 or whatever per 2 threads), aren't Intel's worse using this standard as it's only 1 core per 2 threads?

Well my $0.02, but Intel's SB for instance has (4) true physical cores plus HT, so at a single thread/single core performance it has an advantage over BD, because it has a "true" (very efficient) core. However, at a multi-threaded scenario it has has a theoretical disadvantage due to the inefficient HT acting something like (1.3) of a core vs BD (1.7) of a core. Feel free to correct me.

GT7R October 2, 2011 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmptyMellon (Post 554133)
since the new BD "interger core" is not a true core; where (2) BD threads are like (1.7) "cores", so not true (2) whole cores.

Ah, first time I've heard that one... damn not even 8 true cores... :(


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 AM.