No I'm just stating what I want to see before I'm going AMD since a lot of applications I use still have poor multithread useage so even if it has core advantage, I don't want the lesser threaded application performance scenarios fall too much behind (10~15% max is where my ego can handle :p).Originally Posted by Andi64
But I said 4.8GHz with 8 cores and HT turned off. Also let's remember AMD has per core clocking ability now, before the least stable core would be the decisive factor, having per core clockability improves the overclocking ability and depending how you count it I'd guess the average core frequency could be seen as the "traditional" frequency ratio in this case, in the past if a core would only make it to 4.4GHz but another could have made it to 4.6GHz you still had a 4.4GHz clock. With AMD's solution if we'd agree average core clock between cores would be the "rounded down" frequency, that would definitely help, my expectation is 100~200MHz higher clock as a result which also adds up.
Of course 4.8GHz is a high count for a 8 core CPU that I don't disagree with but I don't see it impossible with AMD's supposedly very good energy efficiency tweaks. But anyway it's just a bet guys, nothing more, I'm the guy who likes betting pre-release and see how close I get.
So 4.8GHz with HT off and average frequency between cores rounded down was my bet, with HT on I'd say avg 4.6~4.7GHz (meaning worst samples 4.4GHz and good sample 4.8GHz'ish). This is on good water/air and reasonable high 24/7 volts.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks