|
|
|
|
#1
10-12-2011, 08:57 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
 I remember having a 386DX 33 back when 3.0 was released but upgraded to a 486DX 50 after it was released...Ahh, chip nostalgia... To not end up as a complete Intel FB I did run AMD:s from the 1.33 T-bird to the Athlon 64 3000. I was the Core 2 Duo that made walk the broad path again 
__________________
i7 2600k @ 4.5 | GTX580 1.5GB (latest drivers) | P8Z77-V Pro MB | 8GB DDR3 1600 Mhz | SSD (OS) + Raptor 150 (Games) + 1TB WD (Extra) | X-Fi Fatality Pro (PCI) | Windows 7 x64 | TrackIR 4 | G940 Hotas 
|
|
#2
10-12-2011, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that AMD have been too ambitious with Bulldozer, especially when there's not much in the way of software that is "truly" multi-threaded. I think the Bulldozer generation chips will go the way of the PhysX card … it’s a really good design in terms of thinking ahead, but there’s very little software out there to take full advantage it now and the current Intel line of CPUs can do more.
|
|
#3
10-12-2011, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I still feel sort of sick inside for all those that put their faith in AMD's outrageous claims for Bulldozer, including the guy in this thread who had "waiting for Bulldozer 8150 in his sig" AMD has really let not just them down but all of us ... they were the only competition and now they have played their ace, we now know they have been bluffing for a long time.
|
|
#4
10-12-2011, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Adding to this, some time back I read an article from a programmer about how difficult it was to make a program truly multi threaded, without going into detail you can make a one threaded program quite (in their skill levels) easily, going to two core was double the difficulty and dual threaded, but doable, after that it became extremely hard work in a sort of Universe expanding size to keep up.
I think there is a reason Intel have stayed at 4 cores for now (apart from the 6 core XEONS for a select small market) They know the market and knew AMD could not pull this off, even their projected market of Ivy Bridge will stretch to 6 cores as a max for 2012 as well. AMD going for the first 8 core joe smuchk CPU dirt cheap seems like a bad idea in the long run ... IMHO. Small steps AMD, not big lunges.
|
|
#5
10-13-2011, 01:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
For a game like IL2, a multithreaded/multicore approach is easily doable, as it is mainly about computing CEM, Physics and AI for a multitude of objects from game's world. Have 4 cores? just divide the number of AI planes on three (to leave a core dedicated to main game's thread, and player's plane CEM/Pshysics computations needed), and compute each bunch on it's own core (with each airplane having it's own thread on the core doing its bunch of airplanes). And divide all render threads on all 4 cores. Last edited by adonys; 10-13-2011 at 01:06 PM.
|
|
#6
10-13-2011, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
10-13-2011, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That was about game development, not processor design..
thing is, atm graphics can't use 4 cores at 100%. yet, no developer is interested in using the remaining power on improving other parts of the gameplay experience, as long as today the difference between games regarding sales is only given by the graphics.. hopefully, all of them will achieve photorealistic graphic soon enough.. and then they'll have finally to look for other ways to make the difference between games when it come to sell them Remember the old spectrum days? fitting up all the graphics and coding into only 48/64/128k of memory was a time which guaranteed similar graphics to most of the games.. and the result was that game developers were focused on making interesting gameplay in order to make their games stick out of the on-market mob.. Last edited by adonys; 10-13-2011 at 01:18 PM.
|
|
#8
10-13-2011, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the tomshardware.com review of the FX-8150.
"In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors." "Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads." And that's the biggest problem for BD, it falls on it's face when the workload isn't well-threaded. Hopefully AMD gets this fixed for next years "Piledriver". But until then, for gaming: Intel i5/i7 = Intense/High-End level gaming. AMD Phenom II = Medium/high level gaming. AMD Athlon II = Budget/Medium level gaming. AMD Llano = Entry-level gaming. Post Edited to clarify that in my little chart, I'm only talking about how the CPU's gaming performance; if I was talking about multitasking or something else, then the Phenom II would be higher up. Last edited by BaronBonBaron; 10-15-2011 at 04:35 PM.
|
|
#9
10-13-2011, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
)Edit: Having recently built a Llano –based system, I can confirm that you can game on one – hardly an ‘Entry-level budget desktop’.
__________________
I'd rather be flying ... Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5 | AMD FX-8350 | MSI HD7970 TFOC-BE | 8GB Corsair DDR-III 1866 | Win8.1 Pro 64-bit
Last edited by TonyD; 10-13-2011 at 08:49 PM.
|
|
#10
10-14-2011, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Intel Sandy Bridge and AMD Phenom II X4 or X6= High-End gaming. Intel Core I3 & and AMD Phenom II X2 = Medium level gaming. AMD Athlon II and AMD Llano = Budget level gaming.
__________________
“Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.” ― Christopher Hitchens
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
