4
Shivus, on 16 July 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:
Average joe by throwing down an extra $20 on an aftermarket HSF, and doing a little research (watching a youtube video on overclocking his chip) can safely overclock his CPU by anywhere from 600mhz to well over 1ghz. Back in the C2Q days this meant running a q6600 at 3.0 ghz rather than the stock 2.4ghz. You essentially got a chip that cost double at the time for $20 more. The E5200(or was it 4200) was also an overclocking demon. stock clock was something similar like 2.4 ghz, but it was the first wolfdale that could hit 4.1ghz+ without sweating.
These days core i5 sandybridges won't have an issue hitting 4.6 ghz on a cheap air cooler. And there have been individuals who somehow managed to make their FX chips hit 5ghz stable on the stock cooler.
Average joe gets more performance for his dollar and a little research.
Also the multithreaded performance of the 4100 and 965 are near identical. 965 however firmly clobbers bulldozer in lightly threaded and single threaded applications and games. Similar to how in the other thread, my C2D calculated pi faster than Mr. McKenna's 8 core bulldozer despite him having a 200mhz and 6 core advantage. While he soundly bested me in cinebench due to the more cores. Additionally, bulldozer requires more power at load than the deneb and thubian counterparts.
Practically speaking, a few months ago on the WoT forums some poor individual who upgraded to an 8150 bulldozer was disappointed in the loss of performance over his previous chip. WoT is one of many single threaded games. So on top of only fully using 1 of his 8 cores and threads, bulldozer has terrible, terrible performance when it can't fully utilize its architecture.
And for god sakes someone find a benchmark where phenom II bests the 4100 in a variety of tests. I saw many while researching them, but can't for the life of me find one good one now.
Finally a logical and coherent voice, thank you. I've been waiting for someone who knows their **** and with a good attitude to come and actually tackle points presented.
since I've been playing on points for the sake of discussion and not because of my actual beliefs I'll take your argument because even without supporting data it is factually correct. I agree that it is unfortunate that there is no reliable data versus the two chips.
you know its a funny thing about playing the fool, others come to hate you but through their efforts to debate you much information is brought to light for the observers.
and with this, i'm going to bed, have a good one
Edited by Battlecruiser, 16 July 2012 - 04:27 AM.
