Quote:
Originally Posted by kccrow
One more question for you home team. Processors with the same scores on single-core tests will perform similarly in the same tasks. Most applications aren't written to take advantage of more than 4 cores at this time (Some new games like Battlefield 1 will). So if you can get a higher clock with the same, or better, performance on single-core activites, then why would it be advantageous to buy more? Thoughts?
I kind of tried to look into this a bit and came across this...
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/...6350-8350.html
... but there are just as many people wondering there.
I know I've seen identical single-core performance scores for the FX-8350 and FX-4350.
Also read that the Athlon X4 has identical core architecture to the FX processors, but supports a faster memory standard so you end up with a slightly better performing quad core.
The FX-8xxx series usually have more L2 cache, which could be an advantage. Intel gets by with alot less cache so I always question its overall impact. |
A good way to compare CPUs with real world benchmarks.
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare...350/1489vs2880
Single core power is the same, however, I think you are still saying the same thing people where 2 years ago. That multi-threaded use is the exception and not the norm, and thats just changed so much, and will continue to go down multi core path. Again, its legs we are talking about by going higher cores.
You also have to think about how AMD claims multiple cores is not like Intels. Its also not comparable because it doesnt use hyperthreading. An AMD is always half of its claimed cores as physical cores, with each core running two emulated cores.
So your 4350 is truly a 2 core, and your 8350 is really a quad core, if you where to think of them in the same way in which Intel determines how many cores a CPU has.