Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: clarkey01
Originally posted by: Sentential
Well it is more the issue that the newer 600 cores are within 5% of gaming of AMD which is alot better considering how bad they once were.
It only pisses me off when I see people "claiming" that a 5.2ghz Intel is somehow slower than an FX55. That is simply impossible by any account
It shouldnt piss you off. As for 5% in games, im not sure about that, athlon has a very good F math calculation or something which gives it the edge.
And if your like me, you'll know that that article was bull and not worth reading. AMD is sitting on its hands at the moment, waiting for Intel to catch up.
I think when you consider how little power the athlons use in contrast to the 6 series (granted theres a slight inprovement but nothing that major over the 5xx) its still not quite up to the design on the K8.
The K8 is also at a clockspeed wall, the thermals and power dissipation on the highest chips have increased sharply. That point is kind of moot though as AMD has topped out at a slightly higher performance plateau, giving them a comfortable lead.
Where do you get that from? Their .13 chips do 2.6Ghz RETAIL without any overclocking. The .09 are still new and will go over the 2.6, let alone the added upgrades.
Reading comprehension?
The power draw and heat dissipation of the 4000+ is much higher for the tiny speed bump over 3800+.
The 4000+ IS NOT a speed bump over a 3800+. They BOTH run at 2.4 Ghz, difference ? The 3800 is a newcastle and has 512k cache, the 4000+ is a clawhammer and has 1 meg cache.
Clawhammer is the hottest, then its newcastle, then winchester ( all 3 are not even that hot)
Im sorry, i meant to say 3800+ over 3500+. I stand corrected.
