AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz 95W

[informal]

Let me quote you:

and you're still complaining about some "fake cores."

You said I was still complaining meaning you are lying... I haven't used that term in this thread.Period.I do not care who used it,I haven't.
Also "the many benchmark sites" are those that use mostly applications with poor MT optimizations(if at all) and games in their reviews?
How about techreport's word about 1090T and 930:

The scatter plot gives us a little more context and highlights another interesting matchup: that of the Phenom II X6 1090T versus the Core i7-930. While both processors perform roughly in the same ballpark in our test suite overall, the Intel chip requires relatively expensive X58 motherboards and triple-channel memory kits, while the AMD chip works happily in more affordable 890GX mobos (and even cheaper Socket AM3 offerings) with dual-channel RAM. The 1090T ends up looking somewhat more attractive as a result.

Lost Circuits tests can be found here.They also show Thuban performing between 930 and 940 in many tests.

[OhNoes!]

Let me quote you:

You said I was still complaining meaning you are lying... I haven't used that term in this thread.Period.I do not care who used it,I haven't.
Also "the many benchmark sites" are those that use mostly applications with poor MT optimizations(if at all) and games in their reviews?
How about techreport's word about 1090T and 930:

Lost Circuits tests can be found here.They also show Thuban performing between 930 and 940 in many tests.

It's de ja vu all over again. No, you don't require triple channel kits on x58. I'm currently running dual-channel and my read bandwidth is in excess of 20,000mbs/sec. I also said I wasn't addressing you with that remark; the thing is there is so much anti Intel fud out there, sometimes I try to address them in one post - when it makes sense to do so.

"Real world" is a phrase you've used though, right? So how come when it comes to thuban you want ALL benchmarks to be run where Thuban is strongest. Mainstream apps, including gaming is where it's at. You want a processor that does everything very well, not just in one or two apps that the average mainstream user has no idea about. Also, in highly MT optimized apps, budget core i7 keeps up very well with high end thuban. That is all I'm saying. By the way even with the i7 930 as reference, that's still 400 x 6 = 2.4GHZ advantage to thuban.

[richierich]

"Real world" is a phrase you've used though, right? So how come when it comes to thuban you want ALL benchmarks to be run where Thuban is strongest. Mainstream apps, including gaming is where it's at. You want a processor that does everything very well, not just in one or two apps that the average mainstream user has no idea about. Also, in highly MT optimized apps, budget core i7 keeps up very well with high end thuban. That is all I'm saying. By the way even with the i7 930 as reference, that's still 400 x 6 = 2.4GHZ advantage to thuban.

Budget core i7? High end Thuban? Then why is the i7-930 MSRP $289.99?

[gosh]

You want a processor that does everything very well, not just in one or two apps that the average mainstream user has no idea about. Also, in highly MT optimized apps, budget core i7 keeps up very well with high end thuban.

Intel has built in strong prefetchers for data (they have them on the L1 and L2 cache). They also have development tools that help to optimize data for those prefetchers. Using that you can get a higher hitrate for data in the L1 and L2 cache if data is ordered well.
Applications that are used in performance tests or when games are only drawing vertices these prefetching comes in handy, but most real world applications don't get that much advantage from these prefetchers.

Six cores are much better than 4 cores even if Intel has some tricks (80% market share makes a lot easier to add special tricks) to make those 4 cores to work a bit harder by not making them wait for data as much as AMD does in some scenarios.

[wuttz]

Intel has built in strong prefetchers for data (they have them on the L1 and L2 cache). They also have development tools that help to optimize data for those prefetchers. Using that you can get a higher hitrate for data in the L1 and L2 cache if data is ordered well.
Applications that are used in performance tests or when games are only drawing vertices these prefetching comes in handy, but most real world applications don't get that much advantage from these prefetchers.

thank you for pointing this out.
does this mean the data here is squat diddly representative of real apps?
(how does one COPY data faster than you can READ it? )

[OhNoes!]

thank you for pointing this out.
does this mean the data here is squat diddly representative of real apps?
(how does one COPY data faster than you can READ it? )

Are you serious? Educate me, why not?

[BeepBeep2]

thank you for pointing this out.
does this mean the data here is squat diddly representative of real apps?
(how does one COPY data faster than you can READ it? )

That's how much it can read and write at the same time combined.

[gosh]

thank you for pointing this out.
does this mean the data here is squat diddly representative of real apps?

That times the speed for L1, L2 or L3 cache

(how does one COPY data faster than you can READ it? )

Ask lavalys, they have the code (latency for the L3 cache should be slower)