Reply 20 of 42, by Scali
wrote:Except the 8350 is faster than the 2500K in highly multithreaded applications. All the ones tested when the CPU came. All of them.
Well no. Just look at the Anandtech article I linked:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-visher … fx4300-tested/3
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-visher … fx4300-tested/4
Compiling is a highly multithreaded scenario where the FX8350 is losing for example.
It also loses in Photoshop, which again uses multithreaded filters.
I'm sorry reality doesn't agree with you.
Only highly synthetic multithreaded benchmarks can make FX8350 outperform the i5 2500. Real-world multithreaded benchmarks such as Photoshop, Visual Studio or indeed most modern games rely on more than just a bunch of cores running a bunch of threads.
wrote:But I'm very happy to learn that a core can run multiple threads. Who'd have thought ?
Well if you had just read my wellknown blog about that, you may have learnt something: https://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/mult … ulti-threading/
I'm just tired of the same old clueless arguments over and over again.
Besides, the argument is rather pointless in 2015. Intel has updated the i5 a few times, while AMD is still selling the FX8350. The i5 2500K is no longer its competitor, it's up against faster CPUs now.