Posts: 54 +46
Going back to my definition of a multi-core CPU based on its purpose, AMD was only correct in the marketing department. "WOW, 8 CORES".No it's not. AMD was advertizing their hyperthreading as a seperate core because technically they designed two CPU cores that shared an FPU. The counts agreed that a CPU core without a FPU can tbe counted as a full core.
What intel is doing is using a large number of super slow cores to pump up their "core count" to give the appearance of better performance, even though it is the P cores doing 99% of the work.
Correct, there are 8 physical cores, but you can only use 4 at a time. Hence, defeating the purpose of an 8-core CPU.
They were wrong in the technical department. A core is a set of components that can execute instructions individually, if required through affinity, regardless of what the other cores are doing. Not the case with AMD's CMT. It is NOT a full core, regardless of what the courts say. It is not capable of processing instructions regardless of the activity of the other cores.
The reason multi-core CPUs exist is parallelization, so CMT doesn't make much sense in that respect, unless marketed fairly, which AMD did not.(World's first desktop 8 core CPU)
Intel is doing most of the same: pushing the actual core count up (yes, there are 10 cores inside) even though the CPU cannot really do what an actual 10-core CPU can. This is one of those cases in which 1+1 is not 2.
Rendering will clearly show the difference between 10 actual cores and 5 "performance" + 5 "eco" cores.
I appreciate the fact that Intel actually states the configuration of their CPU in the product specs and Newegg lists the configuration in the item name.