[citation][nom]oxford373[/nom]high memory bandwidth don't improve any thing, this thing i learned from SB-E 3820 which performs a little bit faster than i7 2600 ,trinity piledriver cores close the gab between intel IPC and amd, but if amd fx piledriver(fx 8350) have 10% more IPC over trinity so intel ivy bridge will be just 25% faster IPC so next gen fx will be real threat for intel and may be if AMD will do that they can win in all benchmarks.and may be steel efficiency crown from intel. so amd isn't far away from intel all what they have to do is to improve trinity piledriver cores IPC by only 10%.[/citation]
Some workloads benefit greatly from fast RAM (not so much for most consumer workloads) and I'm pretty sure that more or less all of those numbers are false. Trinity has more IPC than Bulldozer, Ivy Bridge has something like 55-65% more performance than FX at the same frequency (performance per Hz and IPC are not the same thing) and core count, Ivy would still have a huge lead in performance per Hz per core, Trinity is still far from Sandy Bridge (although it closed the gap between Llano and Sandy Bridge on the mobile side by roughly 50%), and FX Piledriver shouldn't have greater IPC than Trinity, just greater performance per Hz due to the L3 cache.
IPC is an architectural term that refers to the cores themselves. The advantage that Vishera (Piledriver FX) would have over Trinity (Piledriver APU) is not in architecturally superior cores, but in having a high-capacity L3 cache. The cores themselves should be unchanged, thus IPC should be unchanged, they simply have an improved cache/memory system due to the L3.