Originally Posted by
STaRGaZeR
That's right. Now a dose of reality: you want to do X job with Y program. That program is not multithreaded and you can't multithread it. Go eat that.
As I said earlier, you can read the entire review, or reviews, or better yet, test it yourself. You'll see in single thread Intel owns, and in multi thread Intel owns too with the same number of cores. That's why AMD has its top quads priced so low, they need 4 cores running what, 400MHz faster, to be competitive with Intel's 2 core offerings, and that's why you want a quad Intel if you want multithread perfomance and you can afford it. You still fail to see that many, slow cores only work when the application is fully multithreaded, something that can't be done most of the time for a number of reasons. Less but faster cores will do the same work at a fraction of power consumption and will still give you great perfomance in those cases where you can't multithread your code, or want to run old code faster than previous generation. Not only that, now combine lots of cores with each one being fast as hell. I don't think I need to continue. If you work with 3D renders that's fine, but don't thing everything works as a 3D render because that's simply not true.