Quote Originally Posted by -Boris- View Post
The compare a module to a comparable lonely core on the same architecture. They say it's a 10% performance hit on a module design compared to true dual core.
So they compare scaling of their architecture? How then are two 1.8x fast modules scale up when work together ~3.6x or less If that's true marketing BS comparison is true that might be far worse than i thought i read.
Comparing scaling inside one module which is lighter than anything released since K7 see daylights of the world It's very self explanatory ... to AMD PR minds maybe. For others it's just confusing junk.

But that becomes practice in last 6yrs or so where performance next gen architecture (GPU i bear in mind) almost always aint compared to previous one except in first model it came out (and it's usually just top model that came out). And while cheaper iterations of new one (usually more gamer oriented) are not even compared to previous ones and across wider range on same setup. Well there's some of sits that still does reviews as they should without subjective insight but they become more of exception than a rule in overcrowded quasi-reviewer sites which serve as various PR bulletin boards (no not forums) and for incentive blogging.

You also confuse me in second sentence where again you contradict yourself with yet another "THEY" and 10% performance hit on true dual core. So they compare BD "core" to BD "module" scaling, and then again compare it to true dual core scaling and claim 10% performance degradation?