thewgetmagi

Remember that one time   How wrong that porsche enthusiast was    Ask me anything.    

just kidding, im back

October 19, 2011 at 11:49pm
Home
PC NEWS: As it turns out, it isn’t 1995 anymore!
In early benchmarks, AMD’s new line of Bulldozer chips lag behind Intel Core i5s. Initially, I was massively disappointed but, apparently the benchmarks hold bias toward older Single or Dual core processing and fail to properly challenge a new line of chips able to support 8 cores in some arrangements. 
This reminds of me of really dim witted arguments in a pc gaming forum talking about how the Sony/IBM/Toshiba PPC Cell Processor was inferior to Intel’s i7 900 series because of clock ratings/inability to overclock. In truth, the cell processor is a computational mammoth, and was a ridiculously innovative technology in 2006. I mean no one is amazed my ps3 can play Crysis on full graphics, just saying. Find me a computer from 2006 that could claim as much. 
The real issue here is that benchmarks need to be redesigned to properly analyze the type of computational power that the PS3 and the Bulldozer processors have. 
Also PC users need to go blow off some steam and stop getting so offended when anything challenges their worldview. “Macs Suck” “PS3’s aren’t that fast” “OSX is terrible” “Linux is bad at (everything)” “Only (noobs) use Macs” “(apple product) is just a fad.” Things change. AMD isn’t a run of the mill option anymore, and Mac’s don’t crash every ten minutes. It is not 1995. 

Disclaimer: I have a server running Linux, a Mac, and 2 Windows computers. I have a PS3. A Core i7 400(2.9ghz) is in one of my PCs and a AMD Socket AM3 Quadcore(3.0ghz) is in the other. 

PC NEWS: As it turns out, it isn’t 1995 anymore!

In early benchmarks, AMD’s new line of Bulldozer chips lag behind Intel Core i5s. Initially, I was massively disappointed but, apparently the benchmarks hold bias toward older Single or Dual core processing and fail to properly challenge a new line of chips able to support 8 cores in some arrangements. 

This reminds of me of really dim witted arguments in a pc gaming forum talking about how the Sony/IBM/Toshiba PPC Cell Processor was inferior to Intel’s i7 900 series because of clock ratings/inability to overclock. In truth, the cell processor is a computational mammoth, and was a ridiculously innovative technology in 2006. I mean no one is amazed my ps3 can play Crysis on full graphics, just saying. Find me a computer from 2006 that could claim as much. 

The real issue here is that benchmarks need to be redesigned to properly analyze the type of computational power that the PS3 and the Bulldozer processors have. 

Also PC users need to go blow off some steam and stop getting so offended when anything challenges their worldview. “Macs Suck” “PS3’s aren’t that fast” “OSX is terrible” “Linux is bad at (everything)” “Only (noobs) use Macs” “(apple product) is just a fad.” Things change. AMD isn’t a run of the mill option anymore, and Mac’s don’t crash every ten minutes. It is not 1995. 

Disclaimer: I have a server running Linux, a Mac, and 2 Windows computers. I have a PS3. A Core i7 400(2.9ghz) is in one of my PCs and a AMD Socket AM3 Quadcore(3.0ghz) is in the other. 

Notes

  1. thewgetmagi posted this