8 core AMD vs 8 core Intel

[cytg111]

how does the scheduler know to keep the pair's of cores (1 shared FP) from stalling? (which o/s?) is it like HT where the o/s knows to not prefer to use those cores unless absolutely necessary?

That apparantly is a highly technical question, ive been asking the same question myself (and im a dev).. answer is that it is infact highly "intelligent" at managing resources.. you'll have situations where stack crapping will give you a hurt with ie. hyperthreading but other than that.. the schedular knows best. Apparantly.

 

[cytg111]

..AMDs biggest mistake was to call it 8 cores. Had they called it quadcore with CMT then it would have been much more positive recieved than it was.

Disagree. Whatever they were gonna call it -> Either it swims or it sinks.. relative to the competition. For the life of me i dont understand why they are sticking to those guns, they have achieved nothing since phenom2 imo. Within a market that is only increasing performance by 10% year on year, they actually only have to stay competetive and NOT regress. One order too tall i guess.

 

[jhu]

Dont need to look at anything other than the very expansive AT CPU comparison that was linked, which supports and validates the current market distribution.

No need to isolate one benchmark when the time was taken to compile so many.

The point is to look at the benchmark that is most relevant to the work load. If your main workload is rendering, it makes no sense to look at the gaming benchmarks. If your main workload is gaming, it makes no sense to look at the rendering benchmarks or database benchmarks. Now, for the OP, he's writing his own multi-threaded software. He'll have to look at benchmarks that are closer to his workload (ideally test on both types and see which one is acceptable, although really can't go wrong with either one). I use Povray and Blender, so the only benchmarks that I care about are those two. I really couldn't care less about the gaming benchmarks.

 

[ascalice]

Really, a lot of people perfer Intel. However, my computer store employees and I did some extensive prosessor testing, and the AMD is comparable to the intel. The AMD easily surpasses Intel in gaming. When it comes to performance, intel wins, but not by a lot.

 

[jhu]

Disagree. Whatever they were gonna call it -> Either it swims or it sinks.. relative to the competition.

Perception and expectations is the purview of marketing. Here is the problem: AMD framed their product with higher expectations than they should by calling it "8 cores". Prior to Bulldozer, when we saw the term "core", we expected a certain level of performance, and adding another of the same core entailed the expectation of a 1:1 increase in performance for multithreaded programs. When we heard the term "hyperthreading", the expectation was some increase in performance that was less than 1:1 (often significantly less). AMD threw that out the window by calling their module "dual-core" because the second thread on that same module does not increase performance in a 1:1 fashion.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The FX 8xxx processors are priced pretty nicely. Depending on your budget they certainly can make sense. In absolute terms, Intel makes faster CPU's. But your budget can make a difference in what CPU would be the right choice for you, OP.

 

[mikeymikec]

The AMD easily surpasses Intel in gaming. When it comes to performance, intel wins, but not by a lot.

AMD easily surpasses Intel in gaming, but not in performance...? Which AMD versus which Intel? What rigs did you use? How were your tests different from the multitude of professional reviewers'?

 

[TeknoBug]

Really, a lot of people perfer Intel. However, my computer store employees and I did some extensive prosessor testing, and the AMD is comparable to the intel. The AMD easily surpasses Intel in gaming. When it comes to performance, intel wins, but not by a lot.

Interesting that you say the opposite that I do, you say AMD surpasses Intel? Yet has a slower IPC which matters in most games because most games aren't going to take advantage of more than 2-3 cores, only a small handful of games so far take advantage of 8 cores such as Half-Life 2, Source-based games and Battlefield 4. Were you benchmarking this on Battlefield 4?

 

[XtremeHardware]

go for intel 8 core

 

[mrmt]

Perception and expectations is the purview of marketing. Here is the problem: AMD framed their product with higher expectations than they should by calling it "8 cores".

Throw away all the marketing terms like CMT, x cores and stuff like that, and Bulldozer will still underwhelm. Performance is too low for the amount of power it burns and the die size is too big when compared to the competition. The bad marketing was the just rub of salt on the sore wound, but not the wound itself.