[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by almighty

Meanwhile Intel is stream rolling there chips out, Ivy Bridge is a good 8-10% faster per clock the Snady Bridge.

Er... at what? Cuz I'm not seeing anything close to that.

[entity279]

i guess it's best you ignore that post

[almighty]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

Er... at what? Cuz I'm not seeing anything close to that.

That would be on average, game performance is much improved in CPU limited games.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/04/2...cking_review/1

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by almighty

That would be on average, game performance is much improved in CPU limited games.

http://hardocp.com/article/2012/04/2...cking_review/1

You've got two gaming benchmarks with 6% or over. And a pile of tests showing virtually no difference. I really don't know how that comes out to 8-10% improvement.

[Albuquerque]

Yeah, I'm not sure that Ivy Bridge can claim a whole lot of improvement over Sandy Bridge in pure CPU throughput, unless you want to talk about the enhancements to QuickSync or the iGPU. There are a few percentage points difference to be sure, but nothing that stands out at 10% across the board.

Most of the gains in IVB were power-consumption related; Intel cut full-load power consumption by something like ~15% while keeping the same performance or slightly better. Not a lot to complain about on that front...

[almighty]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf

You've got two gaming benchmarks with 6% or over. And a pile of tests showing virtually no difference. I really don't know how that comes out to 8-10% improvement.

And that was one review with only a handful of programs.... I really CBA to go search Google on your behalf.

[Grall]

It was your original claim, so really, onus is on you to back it up with sufficient evidence...

In any case, IVB was more about finfets and power savings than performance increases I believe. On the CPU side anyhow - the IGP was much improved of course and from what I understand show a lot more than 10% performance increase...

Haswell is supposed to bring further CPU performance increases is it not? Maybe we'll see some leaked details soonish. OTOH, it would seem Intel isn't working very hard on further improving CPU performance right now, perhaps due to greatly diminishing returns, and/or poor competition.

Most people don't even need a sandy bridge CPU for what they do, which probably is why tablets are starting to eat the PC's lunch.

[Blazkowicz]

Originally Posted by RudeCurve

I have no regrets with my two new FX8120 and FX4100 builds. They were relatively cheap too. Didn't see a need to go with Intel.

they are the most interesting FX offers and the incrementally better Vishera refreshes will be fine good enough CPUs.
I can understand that the 8150 feels less great, this one is the power hog. the whole ranges gets deadly power hungry though if you decide to up the clock.

[Frank]

Ok, thanks for the explanations. I stand corrected.

But I still think I got my money's worth out of it. And it's not as if there's anything I do (except compiling very large solutions from an SSD with the -stupidly- only single-threaded and only 32-bit Visual Studio 2010) that actually pushes them (or only a single one, with VS2010) up to 100% usage.

[Blazkowicz]

on a side note I've thought again about a particular AMD CPU : it will be a low end Trinity with a single module enabled, but a highish clocked version with unlocked multiplier.
would be a fun CPU, I'll probably be interested in it. I like stupidly fast low end - Intel is currently better than AMD at it, actually, which is why AMD would have an incentive to have a "black edition" dual core.

[RudeCurve]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

they are the most interesting FX offers and the incrementally better Vishera refreshes will be fine good enough CPUs.
I can understand that the 8150 feels less great, this one is the power hog. the whole ranges gets deadly power hungry though if you decide to up the clock.

I OC'd the FX4100 to 4.3GHz from my previous conservative 4GHz OC...stock voltage/stock HSF...it's still very stable and doesn't run hot at all...couldn't any happier.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by swaaye

Intel surely could build up their capacity if they saw the need.

Surely they could. However that still wouldn't protect from the inevitable monopoly lawsuits.

[swaaye]

Yup. I wouldn't be surprised if they like having AMD around because it keeps the DOJ away. I also think Intel has interesting strategic opportunities by having a budget player that they can control rather easily in a variety of ways (mainly due to AMD's uncompetitive CPU technology).

[CouldntResist]

Originally Posted by Kaotik

However that still wouldn't protect from the inevitable monopoly lawsuits.

Lawsuits, which tend to end in wristslap for the convict. Check the track record of lawsuits against US companies operating worldwide monopolies...

If Intel indeed fears the inevitable little wristslap, then it only emphasises how shitty the situation on the CPU market is. Like Intel has too little to gain from eating the breadcrumbs currently left to AMD, to outweight the following discomfort from the wristslap.