-Rendering
-High performance computing, especially
-Biological, Chemical, and Physical simulations
-Cryptography and Cryptanalysis
For rendering, if each core renders 1 frames a second (for instance), then a computer with an eight core processors will render 8 frames each second. So that means that 100 computers, each with 8 cores will render 800 frames each second. The same is true of modelling possible pathologies of diseases and their cures, working out protein synthesis, gene sequencing, simulating complex biochemical reactions, or plotting spacecraft trajectories.
(all of which are things done by my local university's high performance computing facility, which uses about 100 computers with core numbers ranging between 2 and 32) Last edited by Orac on Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:47 pm; edited 3 times in total QUICK_EDIT
If you're building more cores for stuff other than rendering or servers, you're doing it wrong. I myself would love another 2 cores. Takes so long to render a 4 minute music video as it is, and this would probably cut another 5 or so minutes from the 3 hour long process. And that's alot. _________________ "Don't beg for things; Do it yourself or you'll never get anything." QUICK_EDIT
And they're a failure when compared to the i5-2500K and the i7-2600K. In some operations they're even slower than AMD's previous Phenom II X6's and even X4's in some single-threaded programs.
Well in my personal opinion, AMD processors have always been better "If paired with a good graphics card" than Intel processors for gaming and rendering and stuff like that. For all other stuff, yes, the Intel i7 6 core is a beast. _________________
The enemy shall be injected with toxic poison - Venom QUICK_EDIT
Well in my personal opinion, AMD processors have always been better "If paired with a good graphics card" than Intel processors for gaming and rendering and stuff like that.
With gaming the processor doesn't matter much since in pretty much all modern games the FPS is limited by the graphics card (and even in cases where it's not, a CPU multiple years old can still achieve more than playable framerates). I haven't even found anything that my 5-year-old Core 2 Duo wouldn't be able to run yet.
By the way I'm not bashing AMD (I actually bought a Phenom II X4 955 just a month ago, since that is currently quite inexpensive compared to Intel's quadcores), but the FX isn't really doing as well as it should be, especially when it's aimed to replace AMD's previous generation CPUs even in general use and gaming. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
Wow, never seen that graph. Kinda nails it down dosent it?
I'm very impressed at the results for the Intel i7 4 core. It dosent show the Intel i7 6 core though. Wonder if that is even more superior. It's the first time I've ever seen an Intel processor out beat an AMD for rendering and graphics work.
Most impressive indeed. _________________
The enemy shall be injected with toxic poison - Venom QUICK_EDIT
I'd rather have an Intel for gaming. If I remember my facts right, they have a slightly better CPU instruction set that caters well to gaming. Not to say AMDs are a bad choice, but their instructions seemed to be best geared to business class work like word processing and the like. Now, that's all true if I remember right, which I could very well be mistaken. _________________ KGR | AT
AZUR
Discord: theastronomer1836
Steam QUICK_EDIT
AMD FX series was a fail. Dont let the "8 core" thing fool you. As Rampastein said, it lost against Intels i7.
AMD is now out of the "who can build the strongest CPU" market. They are now focusing on low energy CPUs for laptops.
Intel on the other hand is progressing good. They recently released "Sandy Bridge-E"(the best from this series can cost 1000 USD). These CPUs are for rendering etc.
January 2012 Intel is releasing what they call "the next generation CPUs" code named "Ivy Bridge".
If you want a strong CPU today, buy a i7-2700K, and clock it up to 5GHz(from 3.5). That's what I am gonig to do _________________ "I'll be staying strapped cuse my mac-eleven make my nuts bigger" QUICK_EDIT
I thought it was kinda funny how it was retailing for 200 bucks. That right there should have told me it was a piece of crap
Well it's not really piece of crap, but for 8 cores it shouold definitly do more than its capable of. Oh well, RIP AMD _________________
The enemy shall be injected with toxic poison - Venom QUICK_EDIT
I thought it was kinda funny how it was retailing for 200 bucks. That right there should have told me it was a piece of crap
Well, AMD has been competing rather succesfully with price for multiple years already (the Phenom II I mentioned earlier cost only €112 for example - and it's well powerful enough for anything I'm going to use it for). This FX release just doesn't even have a good price/performance ratio.
ArvinCool wrote:
They are now focusing on low energy CPUs for laptops.
They started to work(and focus) with these low energy processors after FX release(they realized that their product was a fail).
When it comes to strong processors, they are out. _________________ "I'll be staying strapped cuse my mac-eleven make my nuts bigger" QUICK_EDIT
They started to work(and focus) with these low energy processors after FX release(they realized that their product was a fail).
Source? It hasn't been much longer than a month since the release of the FX, and AFAIK they're still following their Bulldozer development roadmap. Their low-power APUs are of course one of their points of focus (like the Atom is for Intel), but I haven't heard of them dropping out from the mainstream desktop CPU competition.
ArvinCool wrote:
When it comes to strong processors, they are out.
True, but that has also been true for multiple years already. They haven't been competing in the expensive price ranges for a long time. Instead they've been focusing on competing against the i5 and i3. Which makes sense since AFAIK that's the most popular CPU market as most people don't really have the need for all the power the i7s have. _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Holy Crap
