Is it worth it?

[PP Mguire]

Oh my Jesus.

 

[Gabis1207]

So, essentially, what you're saying, Carnage, is that Intel packs more processes into each clock cycle, reducing the need for multiple cores and faster clocks, whereas AMD has fewer operations per cycle, so they amp up the clock speed and add more cores in order to compensate?

 

[PP Mguire]

Yes, in my thread, that is essentially what is going on. Games prefer single threaded performance (cycles per clock) over cores. AMD's module consists of two gimped cores reducing single threaded performance which they compensate for by raising clock speeds and TDP. In this case like I had said in the article, you can think of a module as one core rather than two due to load being split. It's a physical version of Intel's HT but an impractical one causing them performance hindering in single thread apps like games.

It sounds worse than it is, but if you're upgrading your setup there's no real point in going with AMD if you have the funds for an i5.

 

[Drogos]

i have tested this. i had a i7 950 x4 cores and pitted agains a amd 1100t x6 cores.at stock speeds. the i7 950 destroyed the 1100t.
on the bench scores. the i7 scored over 3k more.