AMD FX "Bulldozer" Review - (4) !exclusive! Excuse for 1-Threaded Perf.

[Manicdan]

+1 for testing 4CU/4C in gaming.

[stangracin3]

+1 for testing 4CU/4C in gaming.

+2

so far this has been the best review ive seen.

i want to see MM's wcg numbers also if he would come out of his hole.

[Spectrobozo]

+1 for testing 4CU/4C in gaming.

agreed, testing more single thread softwares and some gaming would be interesting,
4m/4t vs 4m/8t,

[Marc HFR]

+1 for testing 4CU/4C in gaming.

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0033832.gif

Source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...acite-cmt.html (in french, sorry)

[Spectrobozo]

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0033832.gif

Source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...acite-cmt.html (in french, sorry)

thanks,
I think this shows that CMT works quite well (considering how well the 2m with CMT looks against 4m without CMT), and the benefit of disabling CMT gives a limited improvement in some cases, I don't think it worth loosing the extra 4 cores for this gain,
and this is going to be slightly improved on Windows 8 anyway, I think

[Manicdan]

http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0033832.gif

Source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...acite-cmt.html (in french, sorry)

thanks!
we can see a few games were at the same speed while others got 5% faster with disabled cores.

[Brice MJ]

thanks!
we can see a few games were at the same speed while others got 5% faster with disabled cores.

yes, still not enough to match phenom II at the same clocks, if you look at their review

looks like Im keeping X6 1055 for a while

[Manicdan]

yes, still not enough to match phenom II at the same clocks, if you look at their review

looks like Im keeping X6 1055 for a while

yup, and its a shame too, a 4M/4C at +5ghz with the same IPC as PII would have been much more respectable.