I did look at some benchmarks but they were all over the place showing the bottom line it was bad. Now with the new atoms / pentiums that are using Intel's Goldmount if we were to increase the theoretical performance via 50% (pretend that Apollo Lake could scale to 3.6 ghz instead of 2.4 ghz) we would not be as quiet as fast as the AMD FX 4100, with the AMD being faster.but that is not saying much for we are talking about intel's "free cores" effectively where you are paying not really for the cpu core but the rest of the silicon and Intel goal is to make the cpu core and l2 cache being as cheap as possible for you still have to make the rest of the silicon to make a soc work and your goal is to make the total die size as cheap as possible. The thing is the AMD Thuban and Phenom IIs also did this several years earlier and actually in many things performed better than the bulldozer architecture supposedly they replaced. Aka it took 4 years for AMD to reach parity with the Core 2 Quad in similar performance and a similar ish clock speed. Now compare this to AMD who with their 32 nm product coming out in 2011. It was a 45nm processor and it was an old architecture in 2008 with the 1st generation of Core with the integrated IMC (no FSB) coming also out in 45nm in 2008 with the i7 920. Now the Q9650 came out in 2008, but other 45nm quads came out in 2007. At a stock clock the Core 2 Quad at 3 ghz (lets say the Intel Core 2 Quad 9650) is trading blows with the FX4100, but over clock the Q9650 to 3.6 ghz and the Core 2 Quad is fast in most situations both single thread and multi thread. It was slower performance for the similar Core 2 Quad in both single and multi performance if you compare a Core 2 Quad with a FX 4100 (3.6 Ghz base, 3.7 2 module turbo, 3.8 ghz 1 module turbo).
0 kommentar(er)
