6 core cpu's

GBear said:
Lol, that does not mean much at all. The tech within the chip hasn't progressed much at all. Same transistors. Same Cache. AMD cannot match Intel unless they completely develop a new process with different materials to drop the size of those MOSFETs.
Click to expand...


That is exactly the point! Intel needed to invest in a 32nm technology to put 6 cores in a CPU, and guess what? Due to lower yields of 32nm, and the R&D cost, the 980X costs 1.1k!

AMD just added 2 cores to the existing model, and bam! 6-core CPU that normal people can afford!

$0.03 (my 3 cents what now!?!?!?!?)
 
reflex99 said:
That is exactly the point! Intel needed to invest in a 32nm technology to put 6 cores in a CPU, and guess what? Due to lower yields of 32nm, and the R&D cost, the 980X costs 1.1k!

AMD just added 2 cores to the existing model, and bam! 6-core CPU that normal people can afford!

$0.03 (my 3 cents what now!?!?!?!?)
Click to expand...

This is common knowledge...
AMD has the price/performance crown..
That being said, Intel is still better clock for clock against anything AMD offers.
AMD getting a new architecture will be win, once they finally do. :glare:
 
reflex99 said:
That is exactly the point! Intel needed to invest in a 32nm technology to put 6 cores in a CPU, and guess what? Due to lower yields of 32nm, and the R&D cost, the 980X costs 1.1k!

AMD just added 2 cores to the existing model, and bam! 6-core CPU that normal people can afford!

$0.03 (my 3 cents what now!?!?!?!?)
Click to expand...

Lol, they didn't NEED to invest to make 32nm. They want to to progress technology and abide to Moore's Law basically. AMD isn't at 32nm because they simply do not have the technology to do so.
 
GBear said:
Lol, they didn't NEED to invest to make 32nm. They want to to progress technology and abide to Moore's Law basically. AMD isn't at 32nm because they simply do not have the technology to do so.
Click to expand...

Regardless, AMD managed to bring out a hexa-core that is affordable to the majority of consumers. It provides a large performance boost for current dual-core users, although a meager boost for quad-core users, but it's enough to keep people coming back to them. That's their bottom line as long as they're playing catch up and it will work.

Intel has to stay committed to progressing technology, I mean we all remember what happened last time Intel slacked off. =\ Amd came out of nowhere with th x86-64 platform and the Athlon 64 line and dominated Intel until Conroe saved em.

It's not completely one-sided, it is just that Intel has been in overdrive/self-preservation mode ever since they got embarrassed a few years back.
 
Bought my 1055T today, going to pick it up tomorrow.

(and a 890GX board, which i may or may not use)
 
reflex99 said:
Bought my 1055T today, going to pick it up tomorrow.

(and a 890GX board, which i may or may not use)
Click to expand...

You should send me your old mobo. :D
Wait, how are the overclocking options? What all can you change?
 
I was really hoping hexacores from Intel would have been cheaper, but wait two years and they'll go down in price.

32nm > 45nm (Cooler and more EE than a 45nm, like 45 vs 60)

Putting six cores in a 32nm of space is a lot more innovative than six in 45nm. Small space with more or same space with more.

While most are content with PII x4, C2Q, Core i5s, there are some like myself that A) Use CPU intensive apps, B) Want the best of the best (or what I can afford) and C) Max all my games out @ 1920x1200.

A) I compile maps for the Source Engine. No map takes longer than 5 minutes (More like no longer than two minutes). Period.
B) I had 2 jobs, in college, and learned how to save. This means I can afford what I have (refer to my signature), minus the 5850.
C) I cannot stand games that I own that I cannot max the game out without atleast 65FPS or more. Such was Crysis and BC2 with a 4780. Now both I get more than 65FPS and BC2 has full AA.

So when Intel's hexacore goes down, I will probably buy one. For the average consumer a PII x4 or i5 works just fine for everything.

Also an i7 920 OC'd to 3.6Ghz probably yields better results than AMDs hexacore at the same speeds or close too. 4Cores and 4Threads (8Threads total) vs 6 Cores (6Threads total). In what I do (mapping and compiling) an i7 would be a lot better than a non HT hexacore.
 
Well it's no real surprise that AMD loses to the i7. We're talking about 6 cores to 4 cores + 4 threads.
The 90T is a bit of a ripoff IMO. $300 versus a i7 at a bout $300 brings into question the pricing but the lower end Hexa is awesome.
 
Rogue Sniper said:
C) I cannot stand games that I own that I cannot max the game out without atleast 65FPS or more. Such was Crysis and BC2 with a 4780. Now both I get more than 65FPS and BC2 has full AA.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm.... I've got an HD 5870 and a Phenom II x4 965, and I'm able to max out everything and get even higher framerates.

In games, the PII Quad Cores can match the i7s currently. In multimedia tasks, though, the i7's are better.
 
Rogue Sniper said:
I was really hoping hexacores from Intel would have been cheaper, but wait two years and they'll go down in price.

32nm > 45nm (Cooler and more EE than a 45nm, like 45 vs 60)

Putting six cores in a 32nm of space is a lot more innovative than six in 45nm. Small space with more or same space with more.

While most are content with PII x4, C2Q, Core i5s, there are some like myself that A) Use CPU intensive apps, B) Want the best of the best (or what I can afford) and C) Max all my games out @ 1920x1200.

A) I compile maps for the Source Engine. No map takes longer than 5 minutes (More like no longer than two minutes). Period.
B) I had 2 jobs, in college, and learned how to save. This means I can afford what I have (refer to my signature), minus the 5850.
C) I cannot stand games that I own that I cannot max the game out without atleast 65FPS or more. Such was Crysis and BC2 with a 4780. Now both I get more than 65FPS and BC2 has full AA.

So when Intel's hexacore goes down, I will probably buy one. For the average consumer a PII x4 or i5 works just fine for everything.

Also an i7 920 OC'd to 3.6Ghz probably yields better results than AMDs hexacore at the same speeds or close too. 4Cores and 4Threads (8Threads total) vs 6 Cores (6Threads total). In what I do (mapping and compiling) an i7 would be a lot better than a non HT hexacore.
Click to expand...

Then again, this is the i7 980-X or Extreme Edition. I'm sure the non-Extreme Edition will be cheaper.
 
I'd rather just wait for an 8-core. Or dual quads
 
mad pistol said:
Hmmmmmm.... I've got an HD 5870 and a Phenom II x4 965, and I'm able to max out everything and get even higher framerates.

In games, the PII Quad Cores can match the i7s currently. In multimedia tasks, though, the i7's are better.
Click to expand...

Mk... Well A) I took a guess but anyways its probably higher than just 65 (hence the + sign I added) and B) if I actually wanted to be more accurate, Id get Fraps.

Also you're on a 5870 which is about 100mhz faster core clock (or higher) than my 5850.

But anyways:

Charts (if it does work, Ill be happy): http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...compare,1401.html?prod[2617]=on&prod[2780]=on

This chart is between a stock i7 920 (2.66ghz) and a stock PII x4 965 (3.40ghz). Mine, OC'd is roughly as good as an i7 975 Extreme Edition (3.33Ghz). So you're quad core cannot actually match mine. Although for BlueRay Movies or moderate gaming, etc its a great processor as my father has one from a P X4 2.66Ghz (yea Phenom Original).
 
Well I got my 1055T, Installing now.

Say your last farewell to my 550BE!
 
Rogue Sniper said:
Mk... Well A) I took a guess but anyways its probably higher than just 65 (hence the + sign I added) and B) if I actually wanted to be more accurate, Id get Fraps.

Also you're on a 5870 which is about 100mhz faster core clock (or higher) than my 5850.

But anyways:

Charts (if it does work, Ill be happy): http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...compare,1401.html?prod[2617]=on&prod[2780]=on

This chart is between a stock i7 920 (2.66ghz) and a stock PII x4 965 (3.40ghz). Mine, OC'd is roughly as good as an i7 975 Extreme Edition (3.33Ghz). So you're quad core cannot actually match mine. Although for BlueRay Movies or moderate gaming, etc its a great processor as my father has one from a P X4 2.66Ghz (yea Phenom Original).
Click to expand...


You forgot to factor in price...

The Phenom II X4 965 is $100 cheaper. The motherboard is also between $100-200 cheaper. Also, you only have to get Dual Channel kits as opposed to more expensive Triple Channel kits, so depending on what size/speed you chose, that's another $50-100 less than a comparable i7 kit...


Intel = Power at a price
AMD = More bang for your buck.

And now AMD has drop-in Hex core processors that are all $300 or less.

BTW, my fiance has a 4870, while I have a 5870. After hours of testing each system, the 5870 is at least 40-50% faster. That extra 100mhz doesn't tell the whole story...


Basically, I'm glad you're happy with your purchase, but then again, so am I. :cool:
 
Last edited:
That would be epic if my rig got slower, then i could sell the 550 as some kind of god-like dual core
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

auntdabby
  • Article Article
Game Overview: ARC Raiders
Replies
1
Views
494
LukePyro
LukePyro

Latest posts

Back
Top