FX 8350 or i7 4770k

[ANIR0X2K00L]

I need help with this topic, i am getting a new PC and i can wait till then end of this year. The problem is that i will have to keep this PC for the next 5 to 6 years. I can spend extra to get a 4770k when it release but from what i have heard is that next gen games would run better on AMD hardware and will require more cores. I play graphically extensive games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3. I will be getting battlefield 4 so this will give u an idea of what type of games i am playing and all of these games need a good cpu to run, especially crysis 3 and possible Battlefield 4. Please just tell me that should i go with fx 8350 or the i7 4770k (when it releases in june), or should i wait for amd's steamroller or intel's broadwell. And please even list a good motherboard like asus maximus or crosshair formula motherboard or something better. I have noticed one problem that the AMD chipset i.e. 990fx dont have all the latest features.

Any help is greatly appreciated, please understand that i dont want to make a mistake cause if i make one i will regret it for the next 5 to 6 years.

 

[Etnos]

The non-upgradable BGA socket will only exist for the broadwell architecture (miniaturization of haswell). And if steam roller releases in the 4th quarter then i can see what changes the new consoles bring and then decide my purchase. Can anyone tell me the improvements that steam roller makes other than the performance increase percentage?

Sure:
1.) increased register files and improved register file latency
2.) Shortened Instruction pipelines (reduce latency)
3.) 2 decoders on the front end instead of 1 (increase efficiency in handling instructions)
4.) IPC increased by 1 per core and 1 per FPU
5.) 4 pipelines per core (more vertical multithreading)
6.) All of those result in a huge reduction in mispredicted branches, and inefficient instruction handling.

There are more changes than that, but they're a little more technical...I can link you a full breakdown of the Steamroller changes for Kaveri APUs coming Q4 2013 if you like(the changes are itemized for the steamroller core architecture, not the APU specifically).

Can you please pm me explaining the new features, i dont know that much about how a cpu works so please keep it a little simple. And i also read that steamroller would have 28nm transistors?

Not to be a dick or anything.. but I also red there might not even be steamroller. AMD is almost broke.. so there is that.

 

[8350rocks]

Not to be a dick or anything.. but I also red there might not even be steamroller. AMD is almost broke.. so there is that.

Actually Kaveri, due Q4 this year, is the steamroller APU series. Steamroller is very much alive and well...plus, the console design wins will start to pay out heavily in the coming quarter when they start to build them.

You think Sony and MS would have bet their next gen console hardware on a company they expected to fail?

 

[tadej petric]

Not to be a dick or anything.. but I also red there might not even be steamroller. AMD is almost broke.. so there is that.

Actually Kaveri, due Q4 this year, is the steamroller APU series. Steamroller is very much alive and well...plus, the console design wins will start to pay out heavily in the coming quarter when they start to build them.

You think Sony and MS would have bet their next gen console hardware on a company they expected to fail?

Consoles are fail anyway... So why not put failed hardware in them?
Really only reason why theres AMD hardware in consoles is beacuse theyre cheap.

 

[juanrga]

I need help with this topic, i am getting a new PC and i can wait till then end of this year. The problem is that i will have to keep this PC for the next 5 to 6 years. I can spend extra to get a 4770k when it release but from what i have heard is that next gen games would run better on AMD hardware and will require more cores. I play graphically extensive games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3. I will be getting battlefield 4 so this will give u an idea of what type of games i am playing and all of these games need a good cpu to run, especially crysis 3 and possible Battlefield 4. Please just tell me that should i go with fx 8350 or the i7 4770k (when it releases in june), or should i wait for amd's steamroller or intel's broadwell. And please even list a good motherboard like asus maximus or crosshair formula motherboard or something better. I have noticed one problem that the AMD chipset i.e. 990fx dont have all the latest features.

Any help is greatly appreciated, please understand that i dont want to make a mistake cause if i make one i will regret it for the next 5 to 6 years.

For current games the FX-8350 offers a similar performance to the i7-3770k albeit current games are optimized for the Intel chips. This will change with next generation games.

All triple-A game developers participating in the recent pool by Eurogammer selected the FX-8350 as the best cpu for future gaming:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

The crysis 3 benchmark mentioned in the article is this

the Failwell i7-4770k offers about a 1% more gaming performance {*} than the i7-3770k

http://wccftech.com/intel-haswell-core-i7-4770k-review-live-china/

It is waited that SteamRoller will be about 20% faster than Piledriver FX-8350.

The myth about the FX power consumption has been debunked lots of times in the forums and in many other forums. Users who own both a FX-8350 and an i7-3770k will be ready to explain you this. They will be also happy to explain you how their FX rig consumes less power at idle than their i7 rig.

And all this without mentioning that the Failwell 4770k is more power hungry than the 3770k. And the Intel extreme six core chips are very very power hungry (more than FX eight cores).

{*} Note that the failwell tests used high-speed 2600 MHz RAM, instead of more ordinary 1600 MHz RAM, to try to push performance up.

 

[juanrga]

The ps4 having X amount of threads and an 8 core cpu doesn't mean squat as they are 8 SLOW cores.

It goes just in the opposite direction. Being 8 cores @ 1.6 GHz ("slow" when compared to a 4 GHz core) developers cannot code for one or two faster codes and ignore the rest of cores as they do today. Therefore game developers will be forced to do multithreaded code, beating 4 core chips from Intel and pseudo 6 core chips (4 core + HT). That is the reason why all game developers chose the FX as better CPU.

 

[juanrga]

Consoles are fail anyway... So why not put failed hardware in them?

Say this us when are selling them as hot cakes.

Really only reason why theres AMD hardware in consoles is beacuse theyre cheap.

The reason why use AMD hardware is because neither Intel nor Nvidia could provide the technology needed to power a console.

 

[rmpumper]

And all this without mentioning that the Failwell 4770k is more power hungry than the 3770k.

lol, wut?
How is (according to your link) 5.1GHz 4770K with 0.9 vcore more power hungry than 4.8GHz 3770K with >1.3 vcore?

 

[juanrga]

And all this without mentioning that the Failwell 4770k is more power hungry than the 3770k.

lol, wut?
How is (according to your link) 5.1GHz 4770K with 0.9 vcore more power hungry than 4.8GHz 3770K with >1.3 vcore?

What about the Intel specs given in the same link?

3770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 77W
4770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 84W

The same chinese review gives power consumption figures as well

 

[tadej petric]

Consoles are fail anyway... So why not put failed hardware in them?

Say this us when are selling them as hot cakes.

Really only reason why theres AMD hardware in consoles is beacuse theyre cheap.

The reason why use AMD hardware is because neither Intel nor Nvidia could provide the technology needed to power a console.

I call everysingle thing that uses mid-low end hardware and its ment to play latest games for 6 years fail. FACT

So basicly your saying that 5 years retarded (like late in french if I remember right) hardwares got better tehnology than leading inovator in CPUs... *clapping*

That crysis chart is a bit biased; this one is better

Note that this is not strongest i5 chip.

 

[tadej petric]

And all this without mentioning that the Failwell 4770k is more power hungry than the 3770k.

lol, wut?
How is (according to your link) 5.1GHz 4770K with 0.9 vcore more power hungry than 4.8GHz 3770K with >1.3 vcore?

What about the Intel specs given in the same link?

3770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 77W
4770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 84W

The same chinese review gives power consumption figures as well

This is 100% reliable and its not made by 5 year old chinese kid...
(sorry if that sounded racist)

 

[spentshells]

And all this without mentioning that the Failwell 4770k is more power hungry than the 3770k.

lol, wut?
How is (according to your link) 5.1GHz 4770K with 0.9 vcore more power hungry than 4.8GHz 3770K with >1.3 vcore?

A little racist yeah

What about the Intel specs given in the same link?

3770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 77W
4770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 84W

The same chinese review gives power consumption figures as well

This is 100% reliable and its not made by 5 year old chinese kid...
(sorry if that sounded racist)

 

[whyso]

And all this without mentioning that the Failwell 4770k is more power hungry than the 3770k.

lol, wut?
How is (according to your link) 5.1GHz 4770K with 0.9 vcore more power hungry than 4.8GHz 3770K with >1.3 vcore?

What about the Intel specs given in the same link?

3770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 77W
4770k @ 3.5/3.9 GHz 84W

The same chinese review gives power consumption figures as well

Using Intel Burn Test != Real world power draw

 

[juanrga]

I call everysingle thing that uses mid-low end hardware and its ment to play latest games for 6 years fail. FACT

Developers are calling it the nearly perfect gaming PC.

That crysis chart is a bit biased.

Nope and the FX-8350 beating both the i7-3770k and i5-3750k confirmed in other reviews e.g. pclab

Using Intel Burn Test != Real world power draw

Doesn't change the fact Haswell TDP is higher => power consumption will be higher.

 

[whyso]

I call everysingle thing that uses mid-low end hardware and its ment to play latest games for 6 years fail. FACT

Developers are calling it the nearly perfect gaming PC.

That crysis chart is a bit biased.

Nope and the FX-8350 beating both the i7-3770k and i5-3750k confirmed in other reviews e.g. pclab

Using Intel Burn Test != Real world power draw

Doesn't change the fact Haswell TDP is higher => power consumption will be higher.

TDP != Power consumption

(But the integrated VRM's will be part of this)

(Waiting for final product revisions wouldn't hurt also).

(Not to mention they are different motherboards).

Are you seriously going to rehash the same few points again and again. Reposts do not make the claims any more true.

 

[juanrga]

Doesn't change the fact Haswell TDP is higher => power consumption will be higher.

TDP != Power consumption

No said "equal", but higher TPD "implies" higher consumption..

The early rumours of Haswell having power consumptions issues due to moving the VRM on chip are now confirmed. Haswell has about 10% more power consumption but only about 1-5% performance gain.

 

[Guest]

That "nearly perfect gaming PC" is just that, a console that you can also browse the web with. That is why people who use a computer to do actual work on it would never even consider any of AMD's products. If you want the perfect child's toy to play children's games, one that a child can afford, then buy the AMD. If you want a grown up computer that, by the way, also plays the same games just as good and in most cases better (you know, like resolutions over 720p which is what the first chart is in) and is much more versatile, you might consider the adult version of the PC brought to you by Intel. There is a reason why high end computers and laptops such as Apple use Intel chips and the bargain bin ones use AMD: quality and performance. You can dig up obscure benchmarks all day where the settings are just right on the one or two games that the AMD chip wins, and not by very much. In real life, those charts mean nothing. In real life, nobody is going to run the game in 720p, turn off all the AA and turn down their settings just so they can say their AMD CPU is better than the 3rd best consumer Intel CPU. Why did I buy an Intel? Well, because the last AMD CPU I bought CAUGHT ON FIRE. Instead of redesigning the architecture, they just keep throwing more cores in the chip and jacking up the megahertz which turns it into a furnace. Intel actually redesigns their chips. Look at the 3D transistor tech they introduced in Ivy Bridge. That is one of the reasons why core for core, AMD is not only slower, they are almost a half decade behind. The current 8350 CPU single core benchmark has about the same power and efficiency of an i7-9xx "Bloomfield" CPU which came out in 2008 AND has a clock speed about 1 GHz lower than the 8350. If you overclock a 960 to the stock speed of an 8350, it will humiliate the 8350 core for core and probably beat it in overall performance as well. Why are the new consoles using AMD? They are cheap. The economy is bad. The only way that Sony and MS can make a profit is by using inferior parts. And, the best part, there is no advantage in owning an AMD PC when the ports start coming out from next gen consoles to PC. They all are using x86 programming architecture. The internal design might be different (with AMD being far inferior) but they use an identical instruction set and the new consoles will use the same as well. How being made by AMD is an advantage makes no sense. You have to be very gullible to believe that one.

 

[ANIR0X2K00L]

That "nearly perfect gaming PC" is just that, a console that you can also browse the web with. That is why people who use a computer to do actual work on it would never even consider any of AMD's products. If you want the perfect child's toy to play children's games, one that a child can afford, then buy the AMD. If you want a grown up computer that, by the way, also plays the same games just as good and in most cases better (you know, like resolutions over 720p which is what the first chart is in) and is much more versatile, you might consider the adult version of the PC brought to you by Intel. There is a reason why high end computers and laptops such as Apple use Intel chips and the bargain bin ones use AMD: quality and performance. You can dig up obscure benchmarks all day where the settings are just right on the one or two games that the AMD chip wins, and not by very much. In real life, those charts mean nothing. In real life, nobody is going to run the game in 720p, turn off all the AA and turn down their settings just so they can say their AMD CPU is better than the 3rd best consumer Intel CPU. Why did I buy an Intel? Well, because the last AMD CPU I bought CAUGHT ON FIRE. Instead of redesigning the architecture, they just keep throwing more cores in the chip and jacking up the megahertz which turns it into a furnace. Intel actually redesigns their chips. Look at the 3D transistor tech they introduced in Ivy Bridge. That is one of the reasons why core for core, AMD is not only slower, they are almost a half decade behind. The current 8350 CPU single core benchmark has about the same power and efficiency of an i7-9xx "Bloomfield" CPU which came out in 2008 AND has a clock speed about 1 GHz lower than the 8350. If you overclock a 960 to the stock speed of an 8350, it will humiliate the 8350 core for core and probably beat it in overall performance as well. Why are the new consoles using AMD? They are cheap. The economy is bad. The only way that Sony and MS can make a profit is by using inferior parts. And, the best part, there is no advantage in owning an AMD PC when the ports start coming out from next gen consoles to PC. They all are using x86 programming architecture. The internal design might be different (with AMD being far inferior) but they use an identical instruction set and the new consoles will use the same as well. How being made by AMD is an advantage makes no sense. You have to be very gullible to believe that one.

How can someone else select "best answer" if he isnt the op

 

[8350rocks]

That was tadej petric, he's an intel fanboy...I fixed that for you.

 

[8350rocks]

That "nearly perfect gaming PC" is just that, a console that you can also browse the web with. That is why people who use a computer to do actual work on it would never even consider any of AMD's products. If you want the perfect child's toy to play children's games, one that a child can afford, then buy the AMD. If you want a grown up computer that, by the way, also plays the same games just as good and in most cases better (you know, like resolutions over 720p which is what the first chart is in) and is much more versatile, you might consider the adult version of the PC brought to you by Intel. There is a reason why high end computers and laptops such as Apple use Intel chips and the bargain bin ones use AMD: quality and performance. You can dig up obscure benchmarks all day where the settings are just right on the one or two games that the AMD chip wins, and not by very much. In real life, those charts mean nothing. In real life, nobody is going to run the game in 720p, turn off all the AA and turn down their settings just so they can say their AMD CPU is better than the 3rd best consumer Intel CPU. Why did I buy an Intel? Well, because the last AMD CPU I bought CAUGHT ON FIRE. Instead of redesigning the architecture, they just keep throwing more cores in the chip and jacking up the megahertz which turns it into a furnace. Intel actually redesigns their chips. Look at the 3D transistor tech they introduced in Ivy Bridge. That is one of the reasons why core for core, AMD is not only slower, they are almost a half decade behind. The current 8350 CPU single core benchmark has about the same power and efficiency of an i7-9xx "Bloomfield" CPU which came out in 2008 AND has a clock speed about 1 GHz lower than the 8350. If you overclock a 960 to the stock speed of an 8350, it will humiliate the 8350 core for core and probably beat it in overall performance as well. Why are the new consoles using AMD? They are cheap. The economy is bad. The only way that Sony and MS can make a profit is by using inferior parts. And, the best part, there is no advantage in owning an AMD PC when the ports start coming out from next gen consoles to PC. They all are using x86 programming architecture. The internal design might be different (with AMD being far inferior) but they use an identical instruction set and the new consoles will use the same as well. How being made by AMD is an advantage makes no sense. You have to be very gullible to believe that one.

The only thing you need to be gullible to believe is what you just wrote.

3D technology is coming out from GloFo, intel doesn't have it yet...GloFo introduced a proprietary 3d stacking architecture on their newest FinFET. It isn't ready for production yet.

As for catching a CPU on fire, I have seen intel CPUs melt the heat sink to the chip! A metal heat sink...fused to the CPU!

 

[juanrga]

That "nearly perfect gaming PC" is just that, a console that you can also browse the web with. That is why people who use a computer to do actual work on it would never even consider any of AMD's products. If you want the perfect child's toy to play children's games, one that a child can afford, then buy the AMD. If you want a grown up computer that, by the way, also plays the same games just as good and in most cases better (you know, like resolutions over 720p which is what the first chart is in) and is much more versatile, you might consider the adult version of the PC brought to you by Intel. There is a reason why high end computers and laptops such as Apple use Intel chips and the bargain bin ones use AMD: quality and performance. You can dig up obscure benchmarks all day where the settings are just right on the one or two games that the AMD chip wins, and not by very much. In real life, those charts mean nothing. In real life, nobody is going to run the game in 720p, turn off all the AA and turn down their settings just so they can say their AMD CPU is better than the 3rd best consumer Intel CPU. Why did I buy an Intel? Well, because the last AMD CPU I bought CAUGHT ON FIRE. Instead of redesigning the architecture, they just keep throwing more cores in the chip and jacking up the megahertz which turns it into a furnace. Intel actually redesigns their chips. Look at the 3D transistor tech they introduced in Ivy Bridge. That is one of the reasons why core for core, AMD is not only slower, they are almost a half decade behind. The current 8350 CPU single core benchmark has about the same power and efficiency of an i7-9xx "Bloomfield" CPU which came out in 2008 AND has a clock speed about 1 GHz lower than the 8350. If you overclock a 960 to the stock speed of an 8350, it will humiliate the 8350 core for core and probably beat it in overall performance as well. Why are the new consoles using AMD? They are cheap. The economy is bad. The only way that Sony and MS can make a profit is by using inferior parts. And, the best part, there is no advantage in owning an AMD PC when the ports start coming out from next gen consoles to PC. They all are using x86 programming architecture. The internal design might be different (with AMD being far inferior) but they use an identical instruction set and the new consoles will use the same as well. How being made by AMD is an advantage makes no sense. You have to be very gullible to believe that one.

 

[Guest]

Please explain how an AMD CPU will give you an advantage over another x86 brand CPU when they start porting games over from the next gen consoles. Be as detailed as possible. A single picture of an outdated meme is not acceptable. This is an open internet 1 question essay quiz. Feel free to read the entire wikipedia article on x86 architecture as well since it is probably like reading Egyptian hieroglyphs to AMD fan boys who only know how to run around and shoot in Call of Duty and test their frame rates.

Exam 2: please explain how the Intel Ivy Bridge architechture does not use tri-gate or 3D transistors yet even though they do. Also open internet, but pay particularly close attention to the tri-gate transistor section of the wiki article on multigate mosfet devices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multigate_device#Tri-gate_transistors

Also, feel free to use any article ever written by anyone on Ivy Bridge CPUs.

And, yes, AMD will come out with this tech soon... maybe in 5 years which is about right if history is any indication. Also, please don't hurt yourself or anyone around you when the AMD consoles are sent back to the factory to be repaired breaking the red ring of death record set by the Xbox 360 fat. Just count to 10 very slowly, taking deep breaths in between each number and then go run a benchmark on your 8350 to make yourself feel better.

 

[rmpumper]

The current 8350 CPU single core benchmark has about the same power and efficiency of an i7-9xx "Bloomfield" CPU which came out in 2008 AND has a clock speed about 1 GHz lower than the 8350. If you overclock a 960 to the stock speed of an 8350, it will humiliate the 8350 core for core and probably beat it in overall performance as well.

lol, back in 2010, when I was building my current PC, I was choosing between i7-920 and Phenom II X6. I chose X6, you know why: it was cheaper, it was a bit faster at stock clocks (and when oc'ed to reasonable power consumption levels, not that >4GHz and ~400W BS) at 3ds max rendering times (that is what I'm using) and other heavily threaded apps, it was eating less power as well. So no, first gen 4 core i7 will never beat 8350, because it can't even beat 6 core Phenom.

Spoiler

 

[Guest]

The current 8350 CPU single core benchmark has about the same power and efficiency of an i7-9xx "Bloomfield" CPU which came out in 2008 AND has a clock speed about 1 GHz lower than the 8350. If you overclock a 960 to the stock speed of an 8350, it will humiliate the 8350 core for core and probably beat it in overall performance as well.

lol, back in 2010, when I was building my current PC, I was choosing between i7-920 and Phenom II X6. I chose X6, you know why: it was cheaper, it was a bit faster at stock clocks (and when oc'ed to reasonable power consumption levels, not that >4GHz and ~400W BS) at 3ds max rendering times (that is what I'm using) and other heavily threaded apps, it was eating less power as well. So no, first gen 4 core i7 will never beat 8350, because it can't even beat 6 core Phenom.

Spoiler

FYI: CPUs don't fight each other and clock speed doesn't mean squat. If you knew how to read, you would notice that the words "single core performance" were used. A 960 (not a 920) is only around 3% slower core for core compared to an 8350. That 3% could be more than made up for with a 1 GHz overclock.

Here is a website where CPUs do theoretically face off and this page is on the 960 vs the 8350:

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-960-vs-AMD-FX-8350

Overall performance (CPU using all cores): 8.3 vs 7.4 or around 10 to 15%
Single core performance: 8.1 vs 7.8 or around 3 to 5%

Nobody wants to take a crack at the essay questions? The only response is "AMD's best consumer CPU ever, so far, is better... why? Um, here is a benchmark of Crysis 3 in 720p with no AA on... oh, and the new consoles are using AMD chips. Why is that relevant? I have no idea. And they are cheaper. Anything else I say is a blatant lie. I'll just parrot what some blogger posted about the CPU while I myself have absolutely no proof or even any understanding as to why the new consoles having AMD chips in them matters. It sounds like we're on to something, though."

I'll tell you this: sure, many devs will recommend AMD as the more future proof. The only reason for that is they rarely change their motherboard or socket. That is it. And, with new DDR4 SDRAM coming out very soon, the AM3+ platform is gone as well. Note the 3 in AM3 as in DDR3. The only time they change sockets and thus motherboards is to accommodate new RAM tech. DDR4 SDRAM is expected to become the new standard in personal computers by next year. This means, regardless if you purchase an 8350 or a 4770k, your PC will not be upgradable past 2015. That AM3+ motherboard will last about as long as the 1150 Intel platform: 2 generations. If you bought an AM3+ PC back in 2009, you could have upgraded your CPU several times while an Intel PC would have required a new motherboard almost every time. But, each of those upgrades were trivial; maybe 10 to 15% per upgrade. If you truly want a "future proof" PC, you will need to buy it in the, well, future. But, that is only less than a year from now.

Further in the future, both companies will start to phase out the motherboard as we know it and put most of the components on a single chip or SOC. This explains the rumors of Intel doing away with removable sockets and selling the CPU and motherboard as a unit. They will most likely be sold like GPUs where there is still a lineup of different spec'd CPUs and vendors like Asus, Gigabyte, MSI, AsRock, etc. will make a custom board with the CPU permanently soldered on it.

 

[Gennaios]

well lets see...the i5 in some fields seems to perform better than the 8350 so the i7...the 4770k will be performing better than the 3770k so obviously way better than the 8350!also its a newer cpu with more technology on it!

 

[SomeNickname]

Please explain how an AMD CPU will give you an advantage over another x86 brand CPU when they start porting games over from the next gen consoles. Be as detailed as possible. A single picture of an outdated meme is not acceptable. This is an open internet 1 question essay quiz. Feel free to read the entire wikipedia article on x86 architecture as well since it is probably like reading Egyptian hieroglyphs to AMD fan boys who only know how to run around and shoot in Call of Duty and test their frame rates.

You are aware, that there still are different instructions sets, even within x86, some of those even AMD-specific. Of course Intel is capable of emulating these instructions if need be, but it might take them slightly longer (not much, just a bit). So if Games are now optimized for AMD-Hardware, especially later into the console-cycle when the console hits its limits, developers might start using these hardware-specific-instructions to get a little more performance.




Aside from that, most people do not care which architecture is more beautiful, as it is hard for them to really look at it, but are only interested in the overall performance. So it doesn't matter if Intel is more sophisticated or AMD is just punching more cores/clock into their CPU if both have similar performance/OC potential. Yes, some people do care about power consumption but most discussion are only about performance. If getting more cores/clock stable is just as good to get more performance as cleaning the architecture, so be it. If it was so easy, Intel could just pop out some hexa- or octacore themselves. Well yes they do, but only for server business (we don't include opteron either here).
Anyway what I wanted to say is that most people are only interested in the raw power and where the future of gaming is going. Of course you can make predictions whether more cores, the architecture or the instruction sets are the most relevant features. But then again, as always, its just a guess and the future might turn out a completely different way. So either party has to acknowledge it might turn the other way and all they are doing is guessing.