NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
Intel reverted back to its Pentium 3 architecture for development of the Core processors. Pentium 4 was abandoned completely.
Best CPUs of 2015: What you should buy depending on your budget
- Thread starter Julio Franco
- Start date
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
OMG - Why are we now discussing the abandonment of the P4 architect. The discussion is AMD's 2011 architect being considered better than Intel's 1994 "Tweaked Pentium Pro". Putting a heavy emphasis on "tweaked" as if all the changes since Pentium Pro is meaningless. But yet Intel is currently the top dog, Go Figure! And this is after AMD supposedly had the throne title a few years, making the "meaningless tweaks" strong enough to dethrone AMD even with their 2011 architect. How on earth could anyone look on "Tweaked Pentium Pro" architect negatively, if it can't be surpassed?
The only reason P4 was even brought into the discussion was the Hyperthreading feature now found in Core architect. Until Microsoft had experience on multi-core, I can understand why they dropped Hyperthreading from Core architect.
While architechture can be tweaked, there is limit how much tweaking is useful. At some point totally new architechture is needed to gain development. That is the reason Intel developed Pentium 4.
Because Core i7 is based on very old architechture, that also means that many software are optimized for very old architechture. Fallout 4 is prime example. Worse that kind of crap runs, the better. Intel only has advantage on manufacturing process. That hopefully changes soon.
So Intel brought Hyper Threading because Microsoft had no experience on multi-core and then abandoned it because Microsoft had no experience on multi-core
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
I'm not discussing anything. Just giving you some background history that you apparently missed. Otherwise you wouldn't have made that comment.
Rage3D
Posts: 20 +5
860K has two less cores and no L3 cache, that alone invalidates any IPC advantage it may have in games.
Also, the Core series took inspiration from the Pentium M series, which was a derivative of P3, but they also took stuff from P4, the few that didn't suck completely. AMD is retracing Intel's steps so much it's ironic, and I'm an AMD fan.
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
I don't think you understood my point. The 860k has better per core performance. IPC = instructions per clock on a single core. Most games are still single core bound, and the ones that aren't, really aren't using more than 4 threads at all. The L3 cache really doesn't influence that much. Although that's changing, the performance between the FX 6300 and the 860k is negligible in any game that uses 4 threads or less, with the 860k actually having higher minimum frames than the FX 6300 in multiple occasions. The native 2133 MHz memory support also reliefs a lot of the memory starvation that all the FX CPUs suffer from. In heavily multithreaded games, say star wars battlefront, the FX 6300 will definitely beat the 860k due to the two additional cores.
The performance jump & power consumption is not worth it from my perspective. Better get the 860k now, and sit tight for Zen. You can get the 860k for as low as $65-$70. The FX-6300 is 50% more expensive for a minimal performance increase. And again, newer tech...
Last edited:
Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
So we arrived at the point when we talk about how Intel's CPU architecture was evolved?
Guys come on. The fact is that in gaming and efficiency Intel beats AMD big time today. There is no room for any argument about this.
Now one can start making up theories about why this happening and try blaming everyone else in the world for AMD's failure...
But at the end of the AMD is responsible for its products and strategy and they failed so much in recent years that actually they are jeopardizing market competition and soon we might find ourselves in a completely monopolistic market. That would be a disaster for all of us.
So lets hope AMD will come back but please don't try to convince everyone that AMD is better than Intel today. This just make you look stupid.
peace out
Guys come on. The fact is that in gaming and efficiency Intel beats AMD big time today. There is no room for any argument about this.
Now one can start making up theories about why this happening and try blaming everyone else in the world for AMD's failure...
But at the end of the AMD is responsible for its products and strategy and they failed so much in recent years that actually they are jeopardizing market competition and soon we might find ourselves in a completely monopolistic market. That would be a disaster for all of us.
So lets hope AMD will come back but please don't try to convince everyone that AMD is better than Intel today. This just make you look stupid.
peace out
NightAntilli
Posts: 929 +1,195
The best low budget CPU is still the 860k though. Under an i3, AMD is the only option, especially after the Pentium G3258 stopped running certain games due to only handling two threads. No one is arguing that AMD is beating Intel in raw CPU power. But if a game is programmed correctly, an FX-8 CPU can keep up with an i5, an FX-6 CPU can beat an i3, and an FX-4 cpu can be on par with an i3. Sadly, most games are not programmed that way. The i7 is completely out of AMD's league right now. It doesn't mean that AMD CPUs are useless.
Think about the following. If AMD has the worst CPU performance and lowest efficiency of the two, why did the console manufacturers go with AMD for their CPU rather than Intel?
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
IGP - Under that thought the CPU is irrelevant.
lripplinger
Posts: 454 +252
Still using the first generation Intel Core i7-860 "Lynnfield".
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Worry your friends with this $9,420 flamethrower robot dog
- Tinderbox replied
