No it doesn't, cores can do more then one thing at a time this day and age. If a single core of a bulldozer is 25% the power of a single core of a sandy bridge, then it's not going to be as powerful cause of hyper threading(which works). OK do the simple math here say a SB is the base line performance of 1 has 4 cores = 4, Bulldozer is .75 has 8 cores = 6, that s a big "if". that "if" BD is only 75% of SB performance wise. Chances are BD will be nearly the same or faster , I dont know where you come up with this idea or your you misunderstood of what I was saying. Now if your just comparing 4 cores vs 4 cores then you would have a wrong comparison. Its like comparing a dual core to a quad when each core performs very close to each other clock per clock.I don't doubt that bulldozer has the capacity to beat out sandy bridge, I'm saying more cores doesn't mean automatically better. SB-E if not Ivy Bridge will probably beat out Bulldozer with 4 to 6 cores at the same clocks.[QUOTE="configme"]
[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]
Yes it does matter how many cores a cpu has.... Even if AMD bulldozer is 25% slower per core vs Sandy Bridge cpu's both have the same two threads per core ability, 8 cores is still greater then 4. that allows better multitasking, and better future options. The point is that if a cpu is close to the performance of another and has more cores it will out do the other when the software catchs up. Its just like when dual cores and quads came out years ago and everyone was like theres no need for quads theres no point yet those people who bought quad core cpu's are still able to get full use of them and have no issues running modern games and programs while those people who had dual core's have or will move on quads or more cores.
04dcarraher
configme's forum posts
Log in to comment