AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[christoffe9311]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/4
gimp uses 1 core so it shows this advantage. Thats why in some games you see amd cpu get like 70fps at a higher clock then an intel cpu that gets like 130fps as the double ipc is in work.

edit: find realworld tasks that use 1 core that intel is not 2x faster with ivy bridge or haswell at same clock. Prove me wrong then if you think I am wrong.

Both companies have their own advantages and dis advanatges, amd's cores arent as powerful as intels core but intel cant be overclocked as well as the fx line from amd which also has 8 cores. The amd 8350 can be taken upto 5ghz before is becomes unstable maxing around 55-60c where the 3570k can be taken upto 4.2ghz on the same cooling reaching 77c and they both tie neck and neck with each other considering the fx 8350 has 8 cores running at 5ghz on the overclock the temps are very impresive comparing it to the i5 in terms of cores, voltage and temps. You dont need powerful cores when you a more weakers ones works like a nest of wasps weak and harmless one their own but when they come together they form something very impresive.

 

[8350rocks]

If you [strike]don't[/strike] want an intelligent discussion then why let me post at all?. I am far from the most knowledgeable person on here. Some of the crazy stuff I have seen on this thread that are not even close to reality is the very stuff that I am posting. I refuse to put amd in a good light and it is quite amusing [strike]as[/strike] to you amd fan[strike]boy[/strike]s that know I really believe this garbage I post. I mean a gem I saw once here 10-15% ipc improvement which is a low estimate, and steamroller is on par with sandy or ivy bridge ipc wise. I think that [strike]when[/strike] they need 80% to get near sandy bridge let alone ivy bridge which is <10[strike]0[/strike]% better, and I am mentally deficient because I know it's not reality.

FIXED!!!

 

[8350rocks]

Lmao I am in disbelief how someone can be so wrong.

I do not know how on earth you could be shocked at how wrong you are....we've been showing you what a jack@$$ you are for 15-20 pages by now and you still don't get it. If reality is starting to sink in, maybe you'd better sit down...because the harsh truth is...everything you've said for 20+ pages is complete and utter BS.

EDIT: @hafidurp: Just give up...if you really want to get shredded we can take this to another level...and you'll be like a duck out of water at that point...(you already are anyway, but you pretend at this point to act like you know...even though your comments betray your naivete)

 

[juanrga]

juangra are you really being serious or joking. Anyway you do realise an i3 3220 ivb is faster then the 8 core console cpu don't you. My estimation is a 2ghz jaguar core is equivalent to an intel sb cpu at like 1ghz. I think this explains why an i3 3220 is faster then an 8 core jaguar at 1.6ghz as 4 cores score 1.6 in cinebench double that to get 8 cores at 1.6ghz=3.2 score vs 3.3 for i3 3220. Oh and the next generations of atom cores will be about 2-3x better performance per watt then amd jaguar.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=159069

But I was discussing real world performance, not incorrect estimations that are only in your imagination. From your own link benchmarks:

ST:
4x1 jaguar @ 2Ghz: 403.8
2x2 sandy @ 2.5Ghz: 495.5

MT:
4x1 jaguar @ 2Ghz: 840.7
2x2 sandy @ 2.5Ghz: 749.6

Which agrees with what I said:

A jaguar core at 2GHz offers near the same performance than an SB i3 core at 2.5GHz.

The problem of the Intel 3220 is not that it is slower than the consoles CPU. The real problem is that the 3220 is very inefficient and power hungry. Even the 3220T is still inefficient and power hungry.

Your pretensions about next atom efficiency are just another pile of pure nonsense.

Lmao I am in disbelief how someone can be so wrong. Even with all the evidence you still don't admit you are wrong and then claim about i3 3220 being very ineffiicent when it takes half the power most likely of these new console cpus for the cpu for similar performance. To make this easy for you 4 core at 1.6ghz jaguar is nearly equvalent to 1 core and 1 hyperthread of an i3 3220 (100mhz short) 8 cores at 1.6ghz again is slower then the i3 3220 with 2 core and 2 hyperthreaded cores. Also the i3 3220 takes about 17w, the amd supposed to be rated at 35w and we all know amd like to show lower tdps then actual power consumption. Then when you consider some of the cores will most likely be getting used by other things it makes it equivalent to an i3 at like 2.8ghz performance equivalent wise to the console 8 core at 1.6ghz.

Just ask your teacher. Ask she what score is greater 840.7 (4-core jaguar) or 749.6 (SB i3). Ask she also what is bigger 403.8/2GHz (4-core jaguar) or 495.5/2.5GHz (SB i3).

You will see how she says 4-core jaguar > SB i3.

The rest of your post is just a repetition of nonsense and the usual lies against AMD.

 

[juanrga]

Lmao I am in disbelief how someone can be so wrong.

I do not know how on earth you could be shocked at how wrong you are....we've been showing you what a jack@$$ you are for 15-20 pages by now and you still don't get it. If reality is starting to sink in, maybe you'd better sit down...because the harsh truth is...everything you've said for 20+ pages is complete and utter BS.

To be fair, he was right once, but of course this doesn't mean anything because even a broken clock can give the correct time twice in a day.

 

[juanrga]

Interesting interview to AMD corporate vice president

http://www.pcr-online.biz/news/read/interview-amd-s-bernd-lienhard-on-the-changing-world-of-tech/031842

Some relevant quotations:

In the last quarter we believe about 20 per cent of our revenue came from the non-traditional (non-PC) space. And in the next few years that’s probably going be more like 50 per cent. So the AMD you used to know is probably not the same company anymore.

This is not saying we’re going to abandon the classic PC space, but we are leveraging transitions within the market.

For decades the CPU was seen as the dominating factor in how powerful a PC was. But these days it’s a combination of graphics as well as CPU horsepower. This is why we think the APU (accelerated processing unit) is the way forward.

The way you interact with a machine is just different to how it was five or ten years ago.

The Microsoft ecosystem has been suppressing innovation for quite some time, and really was broke up by the time our friends from Apple introduced the tablet space.

 

[christoffe9311]

I don't see what the big deal is... the amd fx 8350 keeps up with the 3570k on synthetic testing what people forget is the fact most modern daily tasks use more cores the i5 has 4 cores. I use my pc for downloading blu-ray rip movies then converting them to blu-ray disk using convert x. making Sony Vegas video's in highest possible settings in terms of quality and obviously playing all the new modern games BF3, black ops 2, dead rising ect, Most people will not look at the screen until a DVD has finished rendering i will usually play one of my games online while im waiting or maybe even record it with fraps ready for my next YouTube video my point is do you think a 4 core i5 will take all that stick and do it better than a fx 8350 which is designed specifically for that job? no i don't think so. so ruling the i5 out for the jobs i just mentioned then what else is it good for you might ask, the answer is synthetic benchmarks, when gaming the CPU hardly makes any difference if you have nothing else running in the background, i will prove my point once and for all with a video i have found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

Enjoy!

 

[noob2222]

juangra are you really being serious or joking. Anyway you do realise an i3 3220 ivb is faster then the 8 core console cpu don't you. My estimation is a 2ghz jaguar core is equivalent to an intel sb cpu at like 1ghz. I think this explains why an i3 3220 is faster then an 8 core jaguar at 1.6ghz as 4 cores score 1.6 in cinebench double that to get 8 cores at 1.6ghz=3.2 score vs 3.3 for i3 3220. Oh and the next generations of atom cores will be about 2-3x better performance per watt then amd jaguar.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=159069

But I was discussing real world performance, not incorrect estimations that are only in your imagination. From your own link benchmarks:

ST:
4x1 jaguar @ 2Ghz: 403.8
2x2 sandy @ 2.5Ghz: 495.5

MT:
4x1 jaguar @ 2Ghz: 840.7
2x2 sandy @ 2.5Ghz: 749.6

Which agrees with what I said:

A jaguar core at 2GHz offers near the same performance than an SB i3 core at 2.5GHz.

The problem of the Intel 3220 is not that it is slower than the consoles CPU. The real problem is that the 3220 is very inefficient and power hungry. Even the 3220T is still inefficient and power hungry.

Your pretensions about next atom efficiency are just another pile of pure nonsense.

first off where does he say opteron x is being replaced? .... where ... Your putting words into his statement, period.

2nd, you really think arm cortex A-57 is going to be just as powerful as an x86 core? good luck, they need a boost of about 85% to achieve jaguar speeds.

It is said in the official roadmap attached to the official presentation. Also the roadmap says that Berlin and Seattle are 28nm, whereas Warsaw is 32nm. Does Feldman say the node size used for each? No, because that info is already available in the roadmap. I don't want he repeating as a parrot what I can ready by myself, I want him giving me extra information not contained in the roadmap.

What part of the new Seattle servers will be about 2x-4x faster than the Opteron X you don't get?

EDIT: I will say you more. There exists a slide that AMD has maintained under embargo until recently, where AMD clearly states its firm prediction on that ARM will dominate the world. AMD is releasing Warsaw chips for the institutional customers that will take longer to migrate to an ARM ecosystem, not because AMD believes that big x86 cores have some future...

I have shown before that companies that rely on speed don't give a sh@@ about low power junk.

I fully understand that a 8-16 core arm cpu is going to be 2-4x as powerful as a 2-4 core x86 cpu. why are you so adamant that the number of cores means nothing?

aside from that, I love your hints that you have secret information that your sharing openly. as I stated, if what you claim is true, AMD is going to suck bad unless HSA is adopted within the next year. 64bit isn't eve fully utilized 10 years later, how long till HSA is mainstream? that how long AMD will suck hind teat if what you claim is true.

as for ARM, I have seen nothing that gets me excited about the architecture. sure, works somewhar ok in my phone aside from all the app crashes, os lockups, and general slow responce. somehow this is going to "dominate the world" without the support of discrete gpus and being as fast as the slowest x86 cpu available per core, aka via nano.

yes everyone wants to see intel's stranglehold broken, but I don't see any evidence that ARM will work on a desktop environment.

 

[christoffe9311]

christoffe9311 bf3 singleplayer doesn't take much power in fact its probably the lowest requirement modern cpu game along with fifa, a 2.4ghz i3 scores similar to top end cpus combined with a gtx 680m.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Guide-for-Gamers.81855.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/_migrated/pics/tabelle_battlefield_3_02.jpg

Oh and your scenario, i5 easily does this:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/9

People need to understand is intel 4 cores at same clock speed is as powerful as amd 8 cores at same clock speed at multithreaded stuff. In fact it should be more snappy and here is a link that proves this at multitasking:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/4

Look on amazon reviews people upgraded from 6 phenom 2s and even 8 core fx cpus to an i5 4670k and they say they didn't believe the hype but it goes insanely fast as that is due to double the memory speed (actual bandwidth) and double the ipc. Thats why AMD have given up trying to beat intel as they are to far ahead and steamroller will be the first step to closing the gap as amd haven't really improved performance per watt or ipc since the phenom 2 days.

God dam! so you're right, that doesn't make sense unless applications aren't take advantage of 8 cores everything is still 4 cores. I hate to say this because i like amd... the fx 8350 actually sucks looking at them graphs its not even beating the old 2500k! whats going on or even the phenom ii x4 980? i think cpu's are actually getting worse than better. the guy on the video did say that amd's cores a equivalent to Intel pentium cores so that might be the problem, when amd eventually get on top of their cores i don't think they will be able to carry on selling them as 8 cores without running into problems they wont be able to keep the temps down, i must say amd are getting sloppy in terms of performance, i think they lost it after the phenom ii x6 1100t.

 

[esrever]

http://www.techpowerup.com/190493/amd-details-embedded-product-roadmap.html

oh look ARM is not replacing jaguar

 

[griptwister]

I forgot to post this earlier.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/amd-details-embedded-product-roadmap-nyse-amd-1828672.htm

@esrever, LOL! The truth might hurt them.

Also, wth is going on with this thread? I swear hafijur made another account just to agree with himself and derail the thread just now.

 

[etayorius]

No High Performance Desktop CPUs in the horizon...

 

[griptwister]

Lol, I'm glad we don't see anything listed as "High Performance" in the embedded section of CPUs. That would greatly suck for enthusiasts.

 

[de5_Roy]

i have some questions about amd and arm:
1. what kind of license did amd buy? on arm's website, it says amd has 'processor license' for cortex a57 and a53 cores. is it the same as architecture license or different?
if it's the same, that means amd can customize the cores to better integrate to their own ip blocks.
if it's not, then arch license holders like [strike]calxeda[/strike], nvidia, apple, qualcomm might have advantage.
2. what will the licensees do when arm raises their royalties? the way arm has operated so far makes them look almost like a charity (amd has nothing on them).
3. is amd among arm's 'chosen' 3 partners for arm v8 testing?

since we were discussing roadmaps, i want to see if this following bit contradicts others:
in the earlier 'opteron' roadmap, amd showed that steamroller is on track for 2013, right? then in a later roadmap, amd showed that 'berlin' apu/cpu will have steamroller core in them. then amd is technically 'by the roadmap', they did debut steamroller in 2013. or did you guys expect something else instead of 'warsaw'?

edit: not sure about calxeda.

 

[esrever]

AMD isn't going to customize the ARM cores. They will be completely reliant on the a57 core from ARM but they won't be competing with anyone with customized ARM cores for what they are doing because they are only using the ARM cores for their microservers at this point. The would only be competing with calxeda which probably won't even have an ARM57 microserver until very late 2014.

Steamroller is still late because it was suppose to be read Q3 this year by the original roadmap. Warsaw will probably be piledriver, AMD would have advertised it in the roadmap otherwise.

 

[juanrga]

christoffe9311 bf3 singleplayer doesn't take much power in fact its probably the lowest requirement modern cpu game along with fifa, a 2.4ghz i3 scores similar to top end cpus combined with a gtx 680m.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Guide-for-Gamers.81855.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/_migrated/pics/tabelle_battlefield_3_02.jpg

Oh and your scenario, i5 easily does this:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/9

People need to understand is intel 4 cores at same clock speed is as powerful as amd 8 cores at same clock speed at multithreaded stuff. In fact it should be more snappy and here is a link that proves this at multitasking:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/4

Look on amazon reviews people upgraded from 6 phenom 2s and even 8 core fx cpus to an i5 4670k and they say they didn't believe the hype but it goes insanely fast as that is due to double the memory speed (actual bandwidth) and double the ipc. Thats why AMD have given up trying to beat intel as they are to far ahead and steamroller will be the first step to closing the gap as amd haven't really improved performance per watt or ipc since the phenom 2 days.

The techreport link is a joke. It uses Skyrim and Civ-V, which are two very rare games where the FX perform bad (i.e. those two games aren't representative of the immense majority of games). Skyrim is one of the games listed in Intel site as "optimized for Intel".

The techreport link shows an i7-3770k ~ i5-3570k and i7-2600k ~ i5-2500k. If a 8 threads chip perform as a 4 threads chip, then that is not a true multitasking test. With true multitasking benchmarks one obtains FX-8350 > i7 > i5.

The bit-tech link is another joke. Besides showing a Haswell i5 being slower than a two generation old Sandy Bride i5 (LOL), the imagined 'multitasking' benchmark puts an i5-3570k (4 threads) as being faster than an i7-4770k (8 threads) and this last one faster than a i7-3960X (12 threads).

Really? a $1000 12 threads chip being much slower than a $200 4 threads chip in a 'multitasking' test? LOL The multitasking is only in the headline.

With a real multitasking workload, the eXtreme 12 threads chip is the faster and then the FX-8350 > i7 > i5.

I have shown before that companies that rely on speed don't give a sh@@ about low power junk.

I fully understand that a 8-16 core arm cpu is going to be 2-4x as powerful as a 2-4 core x86 cpu. why are you so adamant that the number of cores means nothing?

aside from that, I love your hints that you have secret information that your sharing openly. as I stated, if what you claim is true, AMD is going to suck bad unless HSA is adopted within the next year. 64bit isn't eve fully utilized 10 years later, how long till HSA is mainstream? that how long AMD will suck hind teat if what you claim is true.

as for ARM, I have seen nothing that gets me excited about the architecture. sure, works somewhar ok in my phone aside from all the app crashes, os lockups, and general slow responce. somehow this is going to "dominate the world" without the support of discrete gpus and being as fast as the slowest x86 cpu available per core, aka via nano.

yes everyone wants to see intel's stranglehold broken, but I don't see any evidence that ARM will work on a desktop environment.

Seattle is one of fastest chips made by AMD. I estimate the 16 thread version will be at the same level of performance than a 16 threads Xeon E5-2650 (which is one of the fastest chips made by Intel and used in some of the fastest and efficient supercomputers in the world).

Calling that low power junk is funny.

Who said you that the number of cores means nothing?

The rest of your posts was replied before. I already explained why adoption of HSA will not be so tortuous and slow as was the adoption of AMD64.

http://www.techpowerup.com/190493/amd-details-embedded-product-roadmap.html

oh look ARM is not replacing jaguar

The claim was that AMD will replace jaguar servers by ARM servers the next year.

In the embedded market jaguar will be replaced by its successor "enhanced jaguar", because the whole market will be not ready for switching from x86 to ARM in only one year. That is also the reason why AMD will release Warsaw for servers. Warsaw is aimed to big corporations and other clients that will be slow on moving from x86 servers to ARM servers.

In the long run ARM will replace x86 in supercomputers, desktops... both AMD and Nvidia have claimed so and I agree.

AMD places the ARM HieroFalcon chip in the High-Performance tie, whereas jaguar and its successor are not. I find it funny that some AMD haters continue to say that AMD ARM chips are low power junk. LOL

 

[juanrga]

i have some questions about amd and arm:
1. what kind of license did amd buy? on arm's website, it says amd has 'processor license' for cortex a57 and a53 cores. is it the same as architecture license or different?
if it's the same, that means amd can customize the cores to better integrate to their own ip blocks.
if it's not, then arch license holders like [strike]calxeda[/strike], nvidia, apple, qualcomm might have advantage.
2. what will the licensees do when arm raises their royalties? the way arm has operated so far makes them look almost like a charity (amd has nothing on them).
3. is amd among arm's 'chosen' 3 partners for arm v8 testing?

since we were discussing roadmaps, i want to see if this following bit contradicts others:
in the earlier 'opteron' roadmap, amd showed that steamroller is on track for 2013, right? then in a later roadmap, amd showed that 'berlin' apu/cpu will have steamroller core in them. then amd is technically 'by the roadmap', they did debut steamroller in 2013. or did you guys expect something else instead of 'warsaw'?

edit: not sure about calxeda.

AMD has licensed the core, not the ISA. This means AMD cannot change the cores. This doesn't mean that AMD ARM SoC will be as everyone else SoC. AMD will incorporate custom stuff such as Freedom Fabric in its ARM SoC, offering advantages over competitors.

The reason why AMD didn't license the ISA is because developing a custom ARM core will take time and money. Nvidia did license ISA but its custom ARM cores are announced for 2015 (if there is no delays).

AMD will license ISA in a second phase and will develop its own ARM cores, but not today.

There is nothing else instead Warsaw. I don't understand why people insist on ignoring official roadmaps.

Steamroller is still late because it was suppose to be read Q3 this year by the original roadmap. Warsaw will probably be piledriver, AMD would have advertised it in the roadmap otherwise.

AMD has confirmed that Warsaw is Piledriver. AMD explained why and I also did.

 

[gamerk316]

The techreport link shows an i7-3770k ~ i5-3570k and i7-2600k ~ i5-2500k. If a 8 threads chip perform as a 4 threads chip, then that is not a true multitasking test. With true multitasking benchmarks one obtains FX-8350 > i7 > i5.

Translation: Any benchmark the 8350 doesn't win isn't valid.

And again: You are NEVER going to see games load 8 cores to 100%. You won't see games load 6 cores to 100%. And between IB and PD, unless you get to about 6 cores fully loaded, IB is faster. Therefore, at stock, Intel would be expected to win, which is reflected in benchmarks.

Nevermind that people, I don't know, PLAY those games and want to know how various CPU's will perform on them?

 

[gamerk316]

I don't see what the big deal is... the amd fx 8350 keeps up with the 3570k on synthetic testing what people forget is the fact most modern daily tasks use more cores the i5 has 4 cores. I use my pc for downloading blu-ray rip movies then converting them to blu-ray disk using convert x. making Sony Vegas video's in highest possible settings in terms of quality and obviously playing all the new modern games BF3, black ops 2, dead rising ect, Most people will not look at the screen until a DVD has finished rendering i will usually play one of my games online while im waiting or maybe even record it with fraps ready for my next YouTube video my point is do you think a 4 core i5 will take all that stick and do it better than a fx 8350 which is designed specifically for that job? no i don't think so. so ruling the i5 out for the jobs i just mentioned then what else is it good for you might ask, the answer is synthetic benchmarks, when gaming the CPU hardly makes any difference if you have nothing else running in the background, i will prove my point once and for all with a video i have found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2Voo5h3eU

Enjoy!

Based on the last time I did a IB-PD performance breakdown, IB is about 40% faster at the same clockspeed, per core. Granted, PD is clocked higher at stock, which mitigates that somewhat. But what ends up happening, performance wise, is that unless you get PD using at least 6 cores fully loaded (~600% worth of processing), IB is faster, even when doing more then 4 threads, simply because of its faster cores. Hence why PD does well in synthetics, which are always "best case" processing cases. But in the real world, its almost impossible to get 8 parallel threads going, at the same time, without blocking eachother out. Hence why games still favor Intel by a good 20-30% margin (~5-8 FPS on average).

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art50000-13.html&usg=ALkJrhgbt4C3d6rzb7V_d0dh5iwjWhAXKg

Professional Apps:

Multimedia/Office Apps:

Games:

All baselined against the PII X4 965. Situation gets worse for AMD as you OC, since Intel has more OC room then AMD has, due to AMD's already high clocks. [EG: AMD has the higher MHz count, but Intel can OC more over stock then AMD can, so Intel closes the gap.]

Professional Apps:

Multimedia/Office Apps:

Games:

You are free to go through all 115 pages of the benchmarks if you want. In the end, the BD arch is exactly what I predicted, two years before it released, based on nothing but a knowledge of how software works: Great in benchmarks, not so much in the real world. I didn't even have to LOOK at the hardware to know BD was the wrong approach, so its no shock to me AMD is starting to move in a totally different direction (Trinity, HSA, etc).

 

[de5_Roy]

@gamerk316: i don't think any of intel's desktop core i5 and higher cpus run at rated base clockrate. in a single threaded task like itunes encoding, the cpus likely run at their maximum single core turbo clockrate while in 2-4 core loaded tasks they fluctuate between 100-300 mhz higher while amd's fx cpus can barely maintain their turbo clockrate in a multithreaded (loads up to 2-4 cores) task and runs and very close to base clockrate when all cores are loaded. did you take that into account? manual o.c. would obviously be different, but most sites use stock settings for benching.

 

[de5_Roy]

to launch or not to launch, that is the question
http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/32449-desktop-kaveri-to-show-up-in-q4?
apparently amd can't read their own roadmap.

 

[gamerk316]

@gamerk316: i don't think any of intel's desktop core i5 and higher cpus run at rated base clockrate. in a single threaded task like itunes encoding, the cpus likely run at their maximum single core turbo clockrate while in 2-4 core loaded tasks they fluctuate between 100-300 mhz higher while amd's fx cpus can barely maintain their turbo clockrate in a multithreaded (loads up to 2-4 cores) task and runs and very close to base clockrate when all cores are loaded. did you take that into account? manual o.c. would obviously be different, but most sites use stock settings for benching.

True, but games especially have threads jumping cores often enough where you can assume base clocks will be the norm for the vast majority of the processing. You might get a ~2% performance boost due to Turbo occasionally activating, but nothing that displaces Intels position on the charts.

And again: Stock v stock, OC v OC.

 

[8350rocks]

christoffe9311 bf3 singleplayer doesn't take much power in fact its probably the lowest requirement modern cpu game along with fifa, a 2.4ghz i3 scores similar to top end cpus combined with a gtx 680m.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Guide-for-Gamers.81855.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/_migrated/pics/tabelle_battlefield_3_02.jpg

Oh and your scenario, i5 easily does this:
http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/9

People need to understand is intel 4 cores at same clock speed is as powerful as amd 8 cores at same clock speed at multithreaded stuff. In fact it should be more snappy and here is a link that proves this at multitasking:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/4

Look on amazon reviews people upgraded from 6 phenom 2s and even 8 core fx cpus to an i5 4670k and they say they didn't believe the hype but it goes insanely fast as that is due to double the memory speed (actual bandwidth) and double the ipc. Thats why AMD have given up trying to beat intel as they are to far ahead and steamroller will be the first step to closing the gap as amd haven't really improved performance per watt or ipc since the phenom 2 days.

God dam! so you're right, that doesn't make sense unless applications aren't take advantage of 8 cores everything is still 4 cores. I hate to say this because i like amd... the fx 8350 actually sucks looking at them graphs its not even beating the old 2500k! whats going on or even the phenom ii x4 980? i think cpu's are actually getting worse than better. the guy on the video did say that amd's cores a equivalent to Intel pentium cores so that might be the problem, when amd eventually get on top of their cores i don't think they will be able to carry on selling them as 8 cores without running into problems they wont be able to keep the temps down, i must say amd are getting sloppy in terms of performance, i think they lost it after the phenom ii x6 1100t.

No, he is doing what he always does...presenting skewed results that favor Intel architecture...his unofficial title is "Master of Misinformation" for a reason you know...

 

[hcl123]

I am using the following definitions (from the above links):

Uniform Memory Access (UMA) is a shared memory architecture used in parallel computers. All the processors in the UMA model share the physical memory uniformly. In a UMA architecture, access time to a memory location is independent of which processor makes the request or which memory chip contains the transferred data. Uniform Memory Access computer architectures are often contrasted with Non-Uniform Memory Access (NUMA) architectures.

What if more than one processor in a MPU (example 4 cores) makes a memory request at the same time ?

Sure happens all the time... and the answer is; "its arbitrated" ... the IMC (Integrated Memory Controller) has queues for requests

You continue misunderstanding the definition. Imagine that processor A makes an early request to a given address and the access time is T ns, and processor B access time is T+D ns, with D being the delay due to the shared resource being busy with the other request. The inverse case is also possible: processor B making an early request to a given address and the access time being T ns, whereas it is T+D ns for processor A.

The point is that both A and B have equivalent access to memory in equivalent situations, because there is no topological distinction in the memory model. The possible delay caused to A or B by busy resources doesn't split the physical memory into local plus remote.

MORE THAN OBVIOUS is you who don't lol

All that is very dandy... only you ***NEVER*** know what "T" is, until you probe. The access can go to a "remote" DRAM location, can go to disk, can go to network. "T" is a *wild* variable its not a constant.. and its so even for a UMA scheme.

You are only making your own interpretation of NUMA, based on wrong "assumptions"... the definition is not based on the "amount of time", the different "amount of time" is guarantied exactly by the hierarchical memory view of the arbitration of NUMA, while in UMA the access time is kind of flat, ~equal for every processing element of a MPU, if there isn't contention or disk going. And that is exactly what is in wikipedia.(they skip complicating with contention or disk/network going explanations, because wikipedia is supposed to be for everybody... the simpler the better...)(edt)

 

[hcl123]

http://www.techpowerup.com/190493/amd-details-embedded-product-roadmap.html

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/13-09-09/slide-10-1024.jpg
oh look ARM is not replacing jaguar

Not until there is no more need for x86... until there is a *market for x86... and this is mostly dictated by "software ecosystem" than uarch.

Long time (if ever of course) before x86 takes a definite back seat(edt)... but i'm convinced that in the end it will (take a back seat), though in the "path" its not based on technical issues its based on market.