Quote Originally Posted by Rammsteiner View Post
For the pure performance i7 is very good, but you pay for that. And unless you really have to live by efficient computing and/or calculating things ASAP, i7 has no real place since even a good clocked dual core would be more than enough to do its job.

AMD has to release a hexa(+) core for servers, that's their main priority and make the architecture more efficient. HT is just fading out inefficiency, it works, now offence, but it doesnt mean AMD is nowhere without HT.
Explain Pay for that as in the i7 940 selling for less than the 3800+ in its prime. I'm glad Ph2 920 has a common sense price because those mentioned would have made it an even worse deal. Never mind that though as Q9550 is less as well. Tell that Pay for it BS to folks who bought not only Intel X6800 but many here who both $669 4400+ and $850 FX-55. The whole system cost might be legit but trying to single just i7 is nothing but Fanboi Banter.

Quote Originally Posted by Lost Circuits
One of the more interesting benchmark results we got was what happened to the Core i7 965 in DIEP Chess when HyperThreading was disabled, namely a 20some % drop in performance. Since it really doesn’t matter which setting is enabled when it comes to show the “absolute winner” maybe it is time for AMD to take another look at that technology and potentially complement it with separate L1 caches for the logical CPUs. Just food for thought…
Some folks think AMD could benefit from Hyperthreading. Dirk might have worked with it while at DEC