Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Do You Think AMD Will Catch Up With Intel

Last response: in CPUs
Share

Do You Think AMD Will Catch Up By 2014?

Total: 105 votes (9 blank votes)

  • Yes
  • 28 %
  • No
  • 52 %
  • Hard To Say
  • 22 %
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:16:00 AM

IF you look at a roadmap AMD increases 10%-15% each year but intel does about the same every 2 years, of course they
also do a prossess shrink every 2 years... not my point, my point is that do you think AMD will catch up by 2014 where the
last arcitecture on the roadmap is?

More about : amd catch intel

a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 2:18:14 AM

Amd is roughly 2 years behind in terms of Desktop Processor performance. Piledriver will only offer a bit more performance which puts it up with first generation intel core series processors (released 2008).
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:20:01 AM

amuffin said:
Amd is roughly 2 years behind in terms of Desktop Processor performance. Piledriver will only offer a bit more performance which puts it up with first generation intel core series processors (released 2008).

Well i think amd might be nearly caught up by then, hard to say though.
Related resources
a c 105 à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:26:30 AM

melikepie said:
IF you look at a roadmap AMD increases 10%-15% each year but intel does about the same every 2 years, of course they
also do a prossess shrink every 2 years... not my point, my point is that do you think AMD will catch up by 2014 where the
last arcitecture on the roadmap is?


AMD catches up 10-15% each year? phenom II was launched in 2008 and FX in 2012. look at the phenom II x4 955 vs FX-4170, according your "road map" the FX should be at least 33% faster then the phenom II x4 955, it's not. I can argue it's barely better then the phenom II x4 9555 and worse in a lot of software programs.
a c 105 à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:27:54 AM

melikepie said:
Well i think amd might be nearly caught up by then, hard to say though.


if it's hard to say then why even state it? this poll is nothing but flame bait and should be closed.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 2:30:48 AM

ct1615 said:
if it's hard to say then why even state it? this poll is nothing but flame bait and should be closed.


Agreed. A flame war waiting to happen, and there was no need to bring it up. Yes, it might make for some good discussion, but fanboy's from either side will flock to this one.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 2:31:18 AM

!flamewar.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:31:29 AM

ct1615 said:
if it's hard to say then why even state it? this poll is nothing but flame bait and should be closed.

Well we all know intel is doing better then AMD. It's just im wondering peoples oppinion on it.
a c 105 à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:34:16 AM

melikepie said:
Well we all know intel is doing better then AMD. It's just im wondering peoples oppinion on it.


your former statement just answered your latter question.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:44:11 AM

From Jaguarsx in another thread;
Quote:
So far the Steamroller core is only going to be released in AMD's successor to Trinity called Kaveri and are expected to be released at the end of 2013. Since AMD has so far not shed any information for 2014 or beyond, there will likely be no socket AM3+ version.

Piledriver will basically bring AMD CPUs up to speed with Intel's 1st generation of Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs (Nehalem, Lynnfield). Intel's 2nd generation Core i3/i5/i7 (Sandy Bridge) are about on average 12% faster than the 1st generation CPUs. I believe this is where Steamroller's performance will be.

Ivy Bridge is likely going to have a relatively small increase in performance over Sandy Bridge; probably around 6% - 8%. While it's possible that Steamroller can equal the performance of Ivy Bridge, it is unlikely since that means Steamroller will have to be around 18% - 20% faster than Bulldozer (Trinity).

By the time Steamroller is out Intel would have released Haswell in 2013. It's unknown what Haswell's performance will be, but people believe it will generally be somewhere between 10% - 25% faster than Ivy Bridge. It's all speculation now, but whatever Haswell's performance will be AMD will still be playing catch up.

I believe in this.
a c 88 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2012 2:50:29 AM

assuming intel release no new processors, sure, amd might catch up in 5 years.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 2:52:11 AM

Whoever voted yes needs a royal beating! ;) 
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 2:55:26 AM

amuffin said:
Whoever voted yes needs a royal beating! ;) 

lolz
May 23, 2012 2:58:25 AM

melikepie said:
Well we all know intel is doing better then AMD. It's just im wondering peoples oppinion on it.



Decades ago the major auto-makers got into many pointless wars over things like speed ect. Those wars way out of hand just cost oceans money and produced little tangable benefit and no profits.

Lets just say that AMD produced a chip that was a little better than the entire IB line tomorrow. How would that translate into profits and market share? How much would it cost them to top intels best chips? Why spend the money? Why not just specialize in certian market segments and dominate those. That would produce tangable profits from year to year.

It's not what I want but it works for them. I have an AMD and i can't wait to swtich to an i5. My chip is for a different market segment.

a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 3:02:52 AM

Fire extinguisher.
May 23, 2012 3:13:12 AM

AMD is chasing a monster. Intel is currently looking to combat ARM, but their desktop/high end will not stop their seeming unstopping progress. I think AMD will not catch up within the next 2 years, or for 10 years. Intel has an in-house FAB, much larger budget. Intel will (im guessing) be the first to switch to another type of board. This is where I think AMD will make up the ground.

Intel will need to invest much R&D into the switch, whereas AMD will not have deep enough pockets for the immature substance. Instead they will force silicon further. But once again when all the companies make the switch Intel will already have a lead and practice and pull ahead again.

Then I think there will be a entire architecture change (x86). It works, but there can be better. This is the area that VIA, AMD, even Nvidia could pull a "miracle" over Intel. But once again, intels sheer $$ will win and have a competitive product very quickly, if they didnt pull the new arcture first.

AMD isnt going anywhere. Even if they dont have the fastest processor they will have a competitive processor in *some* market. Intel knows this, so does ARM. They might force AMD into a smaller market but they will still be alive.
a c 105 à CPUs
May 23, 2012 3:22:34 AM

the real question is the desktop CPU market and where it will be in 2014+. as gamers we love desktop PCs but that is a niche audience. the general market wants portable computers which translates into efficient CPUs. intel may be on top for now but by the end of decade it may be a different story with a different market.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 3:23:21 AM

AMD isn't dead, not even by a long shot, but this poll is ambiguous, though. Will AMD catch up to Intel in the desktop market by 2014 (if ever)? No way in hell, unless there's a drastic change in AMD's strategy. Can they beat Intel in the mobile market for quite some time? Absolutely.

It's all in how you interpret the question, but most here will assume that this is mainly directed towards the desktop market.
May 23, 2012 3:30:44 AM

amuffin said:
Amd is roughly 2 years behind in terms of Desktop Processor performance. Piledriver will only offer a bit more performance which puts it up with first generation intel core series processors (released 2008).


pile driver is going to be 15% better at IPC then the phenom2. people are already buying an am3+ mobo
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 3:48:49 AM

15%, doubt it! :p 
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2012 4:19:41 AM

voodooking said:
Decades ago the major auto-makers got into many pointless wars over things like speed ect. Those wars way out of hand just cost oceans money and produced little tangable benefit and no profits.

Lets just say that AMD produced a chip that was a little better than the entire IB line tomorrow. How would that translate into profits and market share? How much would it cost them to top intels best chips? Why spend the money? Why not just specialize in certian market segments and dominate those. That would produce tangable profits from year to year.

It's not what I want but it works for them. I have an AMD and i can't wait to swtich to an i5. My chip is for a different market segment.


Innovation. Innovation stems competition which stems consumer purchases. Intel has been increasing performance for the last 6+ years with no real competition and they spend billions a year in R&D to only have record breaking quarterly profits each quarter.

If AMD made a better CPU, they would be able to charge more for it (a range of $100-$1000 instead of $100-$300) and thus make more per CPU and recoop any R&D costs easily.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2012 4:50:07 AM

radeoniscool said:
pile driver is going to be 15% better at IPC then the phenom2. people are already buying an am3+ mobo


Ha yea keep dreaming. That's the same garbage we heard about the Bulldozer and look how that turned out.
May 23, 2012 5:09:24 AM

rds1220 said:
Ha yea keep dreaming. That's the same garbage we heard about the Bulldozer and look how that turned out.


intel dropped the ball this time ivy is no better then sandy bridge ur living in garbage for a long time
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 5:11:18 AM

radeoniscool said:
intel dropped the ball this time ivy is no better then sandy bridge ur living in garbage for a long time


Ivy was never meant to be a huge upgrade from Sandy. Bulldozer was supposed to be the next big thing... MAJOR difference.
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2012 5:13:52 AM

radeoniscool said:
intel dropped the ball this time ivy is no better then sandy bridge ur living in garbage for a long time


It's still a increase in performance slight but it's an increase. That's more than can be said for Bulldozer which is worse than the old Phenom II and Athlon II. Ivy Bridges wasn't meant to be a huge step up but Bulldozer was.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 5:21:32 AM

Yet ivy pulls itself further and further away from BD.
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
a c 117 å Intel
May 23, 2012 5:53:34 AM

Unlikely in the near to mid term future. In the long term (10 years) AMD may be able to catchup. But they need to advance through a few CPU architectures to do so. Steamroller is AMD's next CPU core architecture, however it is not going to be released as a desktop CPU until 2014. It will be released next year though in the Kaveri APU which will replace the Trinity APU.

If you can trust what AMD claims, Steamroller will be 33% faster than Bulldozer. Realistically speaking, that is rather hard to believe. AMD has stated that they expect Piledriver to be 10% faster than Bulldozer, and they also stated they plan on a 5% - 15% increase in performance between each new CPU release. Therefore, if Piledriver is going to be 10% faster than Bulldozer, Steamroller would need to be 23% faster than Piledriver (using simple math).

As of now, Ivy Bridge CPUs are basically around 27% faster than whatever AMD has. Haswell is going to be released next year. Whatever the performance increase will be (as much as 20% - 25% based on some people's wishful thing) over Ivy Bridge. By 2014 when Steamroller is released as a desktop CPU, Intel will likely release their Skylake CPU which would likely be around 8% - 12% faster than Haswell based on Intel's track record.

I will point out that Intel made no mention of any CPU performance from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. Therefore, people who were thinking a 10% - 25% performance increase between those two CPUs were delusional.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 6:02:15 AM

Just give it some time, I Think its something to do with marketing, but the BD sucks right now, they should release something faster in the next BD line (Hopefully). If AMD don't make the BD worth going against the i7, then we may even see the next gen i7 be the same as the 2gen's and be sold for hundreds and thousands for something thats already out. something like Nvida 8800gt, 9800gt and the GTS250, or the HD 5770, 6770 and 7770, all the same card, just a few improvements to the bios.

Give it some time, and it might give Intel a run for its money. But no one will know. Intel may even have something hidden up its sleeve, the i7 2600k was 1st deigned to be a mobile CPU for laptops, And it was faster than what they expected and now is for Desktop (from what I herd on a website).

I currently am running a Phenom II x6 1100T and cant complain of its performance, the way I see it, It was cheaper and performs vary well for the money, so I went with that, if the i7 was cheaper or the same, I would of jumped all over it, but its not, even some decent LGA 1366 boards are a lot compared to the AM3+ 990fx boards with the same features.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 6:06:18 AM

Viking2121 said:
Just give it some time, I Think its something to do with marketing, but the BD sucks right now, they should release something faster in the next BD line (Hopefully). If AMD don't make the BD worth going against the i7, then we may even see the next gen i7 be the same as the 2gen's and be sold for hundreds and thousands for something thats already out. something like Nvida 8800gt, 9800gt and the GTS250, or the HD 5770, 6770 and 7770, all the same card, just a few improvements to the bios.

Give it some time, and it might give Intel a run for its money. But no one will know. Intel may even have something hidden up its sleeve, the i7 2600k was 1st deigned to be a mobile CPU for laptops, And it was faster than what they expected and now is for Desktop (from what I herd on a website).

I currently am running a Phenom II x6 1100T and cant complain of its performance, the way I see it, It was cheaper and performs vary well for the money, so I went with that, if the i7 was cheaper or the same, I would of jumped all over it, but its not, even some decent LGA 1366 boards are a lot compared to the AM3+ 990fx boards with the same features.

Well the 8120 has a great overclocking pontential!
a c 478 à CPUs
a c 120 À AMD
a c 117 å Intel
May 23, 2012 6:10:23 AM

^^^

As long as you ignore the dramatic increase in power consumption.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 6:14:39 AM

melikepie said:
Well the 8120 has a great overclocking pontential!


Yeah I know it doesm, I seen a few topics with it at 5.5ghz+ on insane water cooling. But the 1100T still out perform the 8150 at a lower clock on single threaded apps, the 8150 per core performance is just not there, if the 1100T out performed it in per core performance than the i7 will even at a lower clock. Only thing right now that the 8150 excels in is mulch-threded apps like BF3, I would like to get my hands on the FX-8150 of course, but over what I got now, its not worth the price, if you were on a dual core or triple, its worth it for sure if you have the mobo that supports it.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 6:17:15 AM

Viking2121 said:
Yeah I know it doesm, I seen a few topics with it at 5.5ghz+ on insane water cooling. But the 1100T still out perform the 8150 at a lower clock on single threaded apps, the 8150 per core performance is just not there, if the 1100T out performed it in per core performance than the i7 will even at a lower clock. Only thing right now that the 8150 excels in is mulch-threded apps like BF3, I would like to get my hands on the FX-8150 of course, but over what I got now, its not worth the price, if you were on a dual core or triple, its worth it for sure if you have the mobo that supports it.

Well i dont have a sandy bridge cpu, i had a P4 3.0GHz then a Intel atom N570.
But Look What I Got Now :) 
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 6:22:13 AM

FX=P4.
a c 186 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 6:22:57 AM

jaguarskx said:
^^^

As long as you ignore the dramatic increase in power consumption.

THE POWER USAGE!!! :cry: 

BURN BURN BURN
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 6:42:59 AM

I said yes but on the basis of the architecture, IPC AMD may not ever beat Intel but IPC only goes so far, with the change of technology and the increasing needs of the desktop, AMD have opted for the future approach, Zambezi despite lacking IPC, runs Intel nigh on $400 chips in Multithreaded performance and considering its is AMD's first attempt at SMT design, the way forward looks promising particularly when software makes the inevitable move to 2-4-6-8+ thread optimization, which won't be as long as intended. Bolt on the IGPU and you have adaptable performance, throw in Asymetrical Crossfire at the high end and you will have a system that Games well and adapts to the basic end user.

The AMD is 2 years or 4 Gens back argument is rhetoric, it takes one architecture to catch up and surpass, AMD architecture seems to have a lot more of what people would want to see, as before IPC goes so far but you also want a return on your buck with some bells and whistles.

It is a rushed response and somewhat incoherent, I will extrapolate on this later, with reference to gaming and commercial sector needs, which vary greatly.
May 23, 2012 7:01:43 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Ivy was never meant to be a huge upgrade from Sandy. Bulldozer was supposed to be the next big thing... MAJOR difference.


exactly so now intel screwed up. and amd will get piledriver right. the new PD cores in the apu have made a big improvement. ull see piledriver with a good increase in ipc. and no its not a major difference the 8 cores BD are great for editing they only dropped the ball in ipc.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 7:04:21 AM

radeoniscool said:
exactly so now intel screwed up. and amd will get piledriver right. the new PD cores in the apu have made a big improvement. ull see piledriver with a good increase in ipc. and no its not a major difference the 8 cores BD are great for editing they only dropped the ball in ipc.


How did they screw up? They never said that Ivy would be a major upgrade, just an evolution. How is that screwing up when they delivered exactly what they said they would?

And Piledriver will not be the CPU that brings them even either. Steamroller will probably even out the performane between the Sandy/Ivy chips form Intel, but by then, Intel will have Haswell and then Skylake. AMD will still be behind...
May 23, 2012 7:05:20 AM

rds1220 said:
It's still a increase in performance slight but it's an increase. That's more than can be said for Bulldozer which is worse than the old Phenom II and Athlon II. Ivy Bridges wasn't meant to be a huge step up but Bulldozer was.


bulldozer isnt worse then phenom 2 the 8 core bd beats all cpus for editing aside from the sandybridge e. ivy bridge is a waste of money its for tards if you already have a sandy bridge. ivy bridge was suppose to promis a good improvement for ipc but they failed at the heat issues how dumb can u get and yet its still overpriced becuz of fanboys like u
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 7:08:47 AM

And because of one bad apple, this thread is starting to turn into exactly what I thought it would.
May 23, 2012 7:09:43 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
How did they screw up? They never said that Ivy would be a major upgrade, just an evolution. How is that screwing up when they delivered exactly what they said they would?

And Piledriver will not be the CPU that brings them even either. Steamroller will probably even out the performane between the Sandy/Ivy chips form Intel, but be then, Intel will have Haswell and then Skylake. AMD will still be behind...


um ok yes intel did drop the ball becuase they promised a good increase of performance. but thats not the case if you have an unlocked sandy bridge your better off. amd is ahead of intel in mainstream for editing. gaming right now no.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 7:10:54 AM

radeoniscool said:
um ok yes intel did drop the ball becuase they promised a good increase of performance. but thats not the case if you have an unlocked sandy bridge your better off. amd is ahead of intel in mainstream for editing. gaming right now no.


Show me where they promised a more than 10-15% increase in performance. Oh, I'm sorry, you can't.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 7:12:07 AM

radeoniscool said:
bulldozer isnt worse then phenom 2 the 8 core bd beats all cpus for editing aside from the sandybridge e. ivy bridge is a waste of money its for tards if you already have a sandy bridge. ivy bridge was suppose to promis a good improvement for ipc but they failed at the heat issues how dumb can u get and yet its still overpriced becuz of fanboys like u


Video editing is a niche thing. Of course it does well in video editing because it's highly threaded... Not a good argument there, when it's worse than Phenom II at pretty much everything else.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 8:25:21 AM

16 people say no, but there is not a single valid or conceieved reason for said vote, there is however a lot of bait mongering by usual suspects.

a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 8:29:40 AM

sarinaide said:
16 people say no, but there is not a single valid or conceieved reason for said vote, there is however a lot of bait mongering by usual suspects.


Same reason why I Voted for "Hard To Say". Never know with these companies.
a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 10:16:03 AM

DJDeCiBeL said:
Show me where they promised a more than 10-15% increase in performance. Oh, I'm sorry, you can't.

you mean these intel slides showing 7% to 192% faster than the 2600k? (originally both clocked at 3.4 ghz)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111129203559...

and where did we end up? 1-7.5% ... (both clocked at 3.5 ghz)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

be careful what you ask for, you might just get it sometimes.
a c 105 à CPUs
May 23, 2012 11:12:16 AM

radeoniscool said:
intel dropped the ball this time ivy is no better then sandy bridge ur living in garbage for a long time


and here come the idiot fan boys lured by the bait....
a c 82 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 11:56:32 AM

first off, i voted yes. i think i am the 10th 'yes' vote. amd is actually ahead of intel in some areas. their igpu in the apus kick intel equivalents' ass. when brazos came out, it was good enough for most people to consider intel's atom cpus irrelevant. they were that good. then llano apus came out, amd's apu's igpus were running circles around intel's then-best offering, hd3000. now trinity's out and amd's igpus are ahead of intel and amd's previous offerings again. apus' cpus are decent enough for most people to carry out their general tasks. even their recent underwhelming launch - bulldozer, has picked up a cult following. so while amd might be slightly behind intel in some areas, they're trying to catch up and they're ahead of intel in some areas too. their upcoming foray into hsa seems promising as well...okay, bulldozer seemed promising too, i guess time will tell.
secondly, the title is troll-bait-ish. it's never specified what or which sector amd catches up to intel. it's not specific enough.
third, threads like this attracts fanboys from both sides who hijack the thread and start bickering, the three posts below are examples.
radeoniscool said:
um ok yes intel did drop the ball becuase they promised a good increase of performance. but thats not the case if you have an unlocked sandy bridge your better off. amd is ahead of intel in mainstream for editing. gaming right now no.

intel 'promised' up to 15-25% cpu improvement, task specific - check noob's links. intel is ahead of amd in the video editing as well. reason: intel's hyperthreading is more effective on core i7 cpus, intel has better imc, cache usage and branch prediction - all of which contribute to core i7 cpus' better, more efficient performance in video editing, rendering, transcoding.
sarinaide said:
16 people say no, but there is not a single valid or conceieved reason for said vote, there is however a lot of bait mongering by usual suspects.

you got caught up nicely.. ;) 
noob2222 said:
you mean these intel slides showing 7% to 192% faster than the 2600k? (originally both clocked at 3.4 ghz)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111129203559...

and where did we end up? 1-7.5% ... (both clocked at 3.5 ghz)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

be careful what you ask for, you might just get it sometimes.

the synthetic benches benefit from the igpu. and the triple digit improvement comes from cherrypicking rather than actual performance improvement. notice that the hd4000 igpu in core i7 3770k is being compared to hd2000 igpu in the core i7 2600. it's the same way amd championed fx8150 against a core i7 980x in their promo slides. all companies do this.

a b à CPUs
May 23, 2012 12:25:52 PM

de5_Roy said:
first off, i voted yes. i think i am the 10th 'yes' vote. amd is actually ahead of intel in some areas. their igpu in the apus kick intel equivalents' ass. when brazos came out, it was good enough for most people to consider intel's atom cpus irrelevant. they were that good. then llano apus came out, amd's apu's igpus were running circles around intel's then-best offering, hd3000. now trinity's out and amd's igpus are ahead of intel and amd's previous offerings again. apus' cpus are decent enough for most people to carry out their general tasks. even their recent underwhelming launch - bulldozer, has picked up a cult following. so while amd might be slightly behind intel in some areas, they're trying to catch up and they're ahead of intel in some areas too. their upcoming foray into hsa seems promising as well...okay, bulldozer seemed promising too, i guess time will tell.
secondly, the title is troll-bait-ish. it's never specified what or which sector amd catches up to intel. it's not specific enough.
third, threads like this attracts fanboys from both sides who hijack the thread and start bickering, the three posts below are examples.


you got caught up nicely.. ;) 


No, I gave my reasons, and for some odd reason it coincides with yours :p 

No, I didn't, the usual "my intel is better than yours" rhetoric ensued and the OP's question was completely ignored.
a c 283 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
May 23, 2012 1:05:50 PM

noob2222 said:
you mean these intel slides showing 7% to 192% faster than the 2600k? (originally both clocked at 3.4 ghz)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111129203559...

and where did we end up? 1-7.5% ... (both clocked at 3.5 ghz)

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmar...

be careful what you ask for, you might just get it sometimes.


As De5_roy already said, the 192% number has NOTHING to do with actual CPU performance. HD 4000 vs. HD 2000 was the reason for that inflated number. The highest number in PURE CPU performance was listed at 25% in Excel performance (which is better than 10-15%, I know, but really, how many people base overall performance on one program, let alone Excel?).

Think and read before you speak, son...
a c 146 à CPUs
a b À AMD
May 23, 2012 3:44:12 PM

radeoniscool said:
bulldozer isnt worse then phenom 2 the 8 core bd beats all cpus for editing aside from the sandybridge e. ivy bridge is a waste of money its for tards if you already have a sandy bridge. ivy bridge was suppose to promis a good improvement for ipc but they failed at the heat issues how dumb can u get and yet its still overpriced becuz of fanboys like u


Once again in less than a week you've proven you have no clue what you're talking about. Clock for clock Sandy Bridges is way ahead of the Bulldozer in performance and and Ivy Bridges widens that gap even more. Like I said in the other thread take off your fanboy blinds and take a look at some of the benchmarks you so conviently ignore.
!