AMD’s new 5GHz chip runs so hot it ships with watercooling

paulpicks21 said:

Oh man, you are kidding me. How the heck can AMD do such an epic fail! An 8 core 5GHz CPU can't beat an old school Intel!

But in all seriousness I really hope one day AMD are competitive again one day as it will be good for the industry all round.

What do you mean calling my CPU old? It can do 5GHz too.

If you wanted to know why AMD's 8 core processor does not kill anything despite being 5 GHz. Its because its not a real 8 core processor. Its a four core processor with hyper-threading. In simple terms. The architecture AMD has gone with on its current processors is just awful compared to Intel's current line. They should have stayed with the Phenom II line and advanced that. But nope, they went with the craptastic Bulldozer line.

^True and AMD Phenom 6 core CPUs are pure 6 Cores. AMDs have been creating too much CPUs now..

This pleases me as i have phenom II. Know I understand why amd's havent been keeping up with intells nearly as well.

I too was curious. How can 4 c beat 8 c. Well amd truly doesn't have 8c. That helps :)

Thanks

p.s. I like intell the only problem is the price. Amd has always beaten it.

logicearth said:

If you wanted to know why AMD's 8 core processor does not kill anything despite being 5 GHz. Its because its not a real 8 core processor. Its a four core processor with hyper-threading. In simple terms. The architecture AMD has gone with on its current processors is just awful compared to Intel's current line. They should have stayed with the Phenom II line and advanced that. But nope, they went with the craptastic Bulldozer line.

Interesting. never knew that. Seems amazing to me. That sucks.....

logicearth said:

If you wanted to know why AMD's 8 core processor does not kill anything despite being 5 GHz. Its because its not a real 8 core processor. Its a four core processor with hyper-threading. In simple terms. The architecture AMD has gone with on its current processors is just awful compared to Intel's current line. They should have stayed with the Phenom II line and advanced that. But nope, they went with the craptastic Bulldozer line.

I am not saying you are wrong logicearth but where did you get this information from? Is it common knowledge or something. I did a search online but I can't seem to find anything on it being 4 cores with 8 threads. Everywhere I looked it was just called 8 core.

If it's true then it should not be allowed, it's false advertising really.

paulpicks21 said:

I am not saying you are wrong logicearth but where did you get this information from? Is it common knowledge or something. I did a search online but I can't seem to find anything on it being 4 cores with 8 threads. Everywhere I looked it was just called 8 core.

If it's true then it should not be allowed, it's false advertising really.

Well you can see it in the architecture map of the "Module" design. The Interger Cluster 1 and 2 are in fact the individual processor cores. Every thing else is shared. In technical terms this is 8 cores in the processor, but when trying to use all 8 cores at the same time, performance takes a major hit, because those extra four cores share resources with the other four.


File:AMD Bulldozer block diagram (CPU core bloack).PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You may recall Microsoft had to release a hotpatch after the Bulldozers came out, they had crap performance? Well that hotpatch was needed to make Windows treat it like a four core processor with hyper-threading. Use the real cores first then the virtual cores.

logicearth said:

paulpicks21 said:

I am not saying you are wrong logicearth but where did you get this information from? Is it common knowledge or something. I did a search online but I can't seem to find anything on it being 4 cores with 8 threads. Everywhere I looked it was just called 8 core.

If it's true then it should not be allowed, it's false advertising really.

Well you can see it in the architecture map of the "Module" design. The Interger Cluster 1 and 2 are in fact the individual processor cores. Every thing else is shared. In technical terms this is 8 cores in the processor, but when trying to use all 8 cores at the same time, performance takes a major hit, because those extra four cores share resources with the other four.


File:AMD Bulldozer block diagram (CPU core bloack).PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You may recall Microsoft had to release a hotpatch after the Bulldozers came out, they had crap performance? Well that hotpatch was needed to make Windows treat it like a four core processor with hyper-threading. Use the real cores first then the virtual cores.

Cheers for the info bud. It's pretty cheeky them selling them as 8 core CPU's really isn't it. I always wandered why they were behind the Intel 4 cores.

So my 8 core cpu is not 8 true cores? Pretty much makes my processor crap now...

He he he
still cant get over getting my cpu before the big lie fest.
I will go for Intel from now on unless the lies stop.
Thanks for all the info, it will help greatly in my future rigs for my friends.