He told you YOU were a 5 percenter… not that the issues were in 5% of Intel PCs…. Reading comprehension
Maybe stop blindly defending AMD when no one is saying they aren’t the best choice… There ARE use cases for Intel - just not for most people…
AMD Ryzen CPUs continue to crush Intel processors on Amazon best-seller list
- Thread starter Daniel Sims
- Start date
Maybe stop blindly defending AMD when no one is saying they aren’t the best choice… There ARE use cases for Intel - just not for most people…
Maybe just admitting that Intel Hybrid is much worse than AMD" c-cores with biger ones" -system, whatever that is named?He told you YOU were a 5 percenter… not that the issues were in 5% of Intel PCs…. Reading comprehension
Maybe stop blindly defending AMD when no one is saying they aren’t the best choice… There ARE use cases for Intel - just not for most people…
The problem is, you’re arguing separate things… we have all acknowledged that AMD is better right now… but… for the right price, Intel is perfectly acceptable - not “stupid”….
Whole discussion has been about Hybrid architecture. That should have been clear.
And Hybrid architecture is just stupid. Apple, ARM and AMD all made much better solution.
And there’s your problem… you refuse to listen to what others say…
bandit8623
Posts: 695 +422
again not better but different..stop spewing lies
"The advantage of E cores is: They are much much smaller: 4 cores + Their L3 slice, are slightly bigger than what 1P core with its L3 would take. Perf/Area is like 1.5x over standard big core. All while AMD's solution reduces core+L3 by just 20%, while reducing perf by around the same number. Meaning Perf/Area is actually the same."
Or perhaps others refuse to listen what I say? Again, this discussion started about Hybrid so how about stickin with that and not something like CCDs that has nothing to do with Hybrid.
That's just plain BS. AMD solution (excluding possible different L3 cache size) performance is exactly same on normal and c cores on same clock speed. Also big amount of E-core size "reduction" comes from facrt E-cores don't support AVX512. Your source (AI?) simply sucks.
bandit8623
Posts: 695 +422
E cores are 50% more efficient than c cores. so again Not better but different
oh they do… not sure why… but they do… the thing is, you’re only saying one thing:
“AMD awesome, everyone else crap”
If you only say one thing - but say it OVER and OVER - people will stop taking you seriously… well, most people… some will stubbornly debate you… guess that says more about us than you though
Similar threads
