Quote Originally Posted by TESKATLIPOKA View Post
BeepBeep2 BD's performance and frequencies are not what i was waiting for and lower IPC than K10 was also a cold shower for me, after so many statements about better IPC
If you compare at the same thread count and don't look at Llano then K10 is really better than BD and I have no problem acknowledging that because K10 has higher IPC and no penalty from sharing.
examples
4 threads Deneb 980 is 15% faster than FX 4100
6 threads Thuban 1100 is 10% faster than FX 6100
link as proof
http://translate.googleusercontent.c...Qk--HLUQ2nZIsw
I disagree. FX 4100 is more like a dual core with CMT and FX 6100 is more like a tri-core with CMT. There is no true hex core BD. There is no true octo core BD. AMD marketing really screwed the pooch with the whole 8 core thing and it really makes BD look a lot worse than it really is.

It's the same as if Intel released their first single core hyperthreaded processor and called it a dual core and everyone went around and said that the dual core is no where near double the performance and sometimes it's even slower so it's a terrible processor. The original Intel P4s weren't all that great, but Intel saved themselves a ton of fail by not calling it a dual core.

AMD decided that catering to less informed individuals and calling a quad core with CMT an octo core would be a better business move, and arguably it is as it's still selling a lot of processors. If you were to compare FX8120 to a quad core Phenom 2, you'd see massive gains in multithreaded apps and that's probably the fairest way to compare these processors.