04-01-2016, 07:26 AM
(04-01-2016, 07:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote:(04-01-2016, 06:33 AM)RolloTheGreat Wrote:(04-01-2016, 06:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Greg is correct in stating that the Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made. The CPU in this thread is nothing more than a glorified dual core. 4 Bulldozer/Steamroller/Excavator cores are not real cores. Each core does not have its own FPU. So at best you could consider this CPU a triple core and even that is a stretch.
I am quite surprised to see it do as well as it does in games. For $90 I would much rather have a Pentium G3258, personally. That way you have a decent upgrade path as well. CPUs like this are not good for serious gaming though and they are only going to get way worse over time.
Greg isstating that Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made, the fact that they went a different direction with shared resources between cores is irrelevant.
What's relevant is their current CPUs are faster than Phenom IIs. The cheesy chip Hardware Canucks reviewed is besides the point.
Are they not ahead by a node shrink now? I would be very interested to see what a 4th generation Phenom II could do on the current node. It would smoke the CPU in the OP. AMD has put lipstick on a pig several times now with Piledriver, Steamroller, and Excavator. If they would have refined a proper architecture like Phenom II they would have came out way ahead. That would require their lead engineers, their CEO, and their marketing department to come out and admit that they all failed with Bulldozer. In other words, that was never going to happen.
I've put it out on forums many times that AMD would have been better off with a die shrunk, higher clocked Phenom II.
That doesn't change the fact that what GStan said is just wrong, and he goes around saying he wins every single argument.


stating that Phenom II was the last real CPU AMD made, the fact that they went a different direction with shared resources between cores is irrelevant.