jdwii :
"I don't know what programs you use. I don't care if you use programs whose code cheats or if you use programs that only utilize a fraction of the hardware potential."
real world programs such as handbrake-games..ect
And other people uses real-world programs as well. Extremetech found that replacing their old x264 binary by one new Haswell runs 47% faster. This means that the old real-world program was only using about two thirds of the chip performance.
The same applies to AMD chips. I don't care if you are using real-world programs "that only utilize a fraction of the hardware potential" and give you false impression about i5s being always a 25% faster...
noob2222 :
@juan
If the scores at "stock" can vary by 800+ pts, how reliable is it as a "real world" benchmark? Also consider that the fx 9590 is just above the 4770k, why would amd abandon it in favor of a passmark score at 50%?
If you want to prove me wrong on cosmology, then prove it. You claiming I'm wrong just by saying so doesn't. It only proves you have no clue and still want to say "im never wrong because my name is Juan."
Post some of your actual kaveri benchmarks, or are you here bragging about the greatest thing AMD ever made to not buy it yourself, and have nothing but google to back you up?
P.s. you need to adjust your fake "trinity overclocks only to 4.5 ghz" figures.
http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review-detail/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-review/9/
If the scores at "stock" can vary by 800+ pts, how reliable is it as a "real world" benchmark? Also consider that the fx 9590 is just above the 4770k, why would amd abandon it in favor of a passmark score at 50%?
If you want to prove me wrong on cosmology, then prove it. You claiming I'm wrong just by saying so doesn't. It only proves you have no clue and still want to say "im never wrong because my name is Juan."
Post some of your actual kaveri benchmarks, or are you here bragging about the greatest thing AMD ever made to not buy it yourself, and have nothing but google to back you up?
P.s. you need to adjust your fake "trinity overclocks only to 4.5 ghz" figures.
http://www.pureoverclock.com/Review-detail/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-review/9/
LOL
![Sarcastic :sarcastic: :sarcastic:](/data/assets/smilies/sarcastic.gif)
I said that accuracy and precision are different concepts and wouldn't be confused. You insist on confounding them.
AMD is not abandoning the FX-9590, it continues in the roadmaps until 2015. I explained another thing about AMD plans, but you didn't understand them.
I already commented on your unfair accusations against the cosmology scores. I corrected your mistake about a dozen of times. No need to do it again.
Your accusation about fake OC made me laugh again. The 4.5GHz for Trinity is not the maximum OC as you pretend. It is an average OC on air as I said explicitly:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/352312-28-steamroller-speculation-expert-conjecture/page-225#12515374
A10-5800k: 3.8GHz --> 4.5GHz [ first gen 32nm SOI ]
A10-6800k: 4.1GHz --> 4.9GHz [ second gen 32nm SOI ]
A10-5800k: 3.7GHz --> 4.6GHz [ first gen 28nm bulk ]
All OC average values on air.
A10-6800k: 4.1GHz --> 4.9GHz [ second gen 32nm SOI ]
A10-5800k: 3.7GHz --> 4.6GHz [ first gen 28nm bulk ]
All OC average values on air.
Your pureoverclock link is about OC a specific Trinity chip on watter
![Pfff :pfff: :pfff:](/data/assets/smilies/pfff.gif)