8 Intel cores faster than 16 AMD cores!

At the Microprocessor Forum, Intel demoed its V8 workstation running the POV-Ray benchmark. The machine is equipped with Intel's Workstation Board S5000XVN, 2 quad-core Xeons 5365, clocked at 3GHz and 16GB RAM. And the results are simply impressive: Intel scored over 4,900 pixels per seconds versus a little bit over 4,000 for AMD's 4 sockets quad-core (Barcelona) system. Again, this is an AMD 16 cores system versus Intel's 8 cores V8 machine.


"Why do you need 16 cores, when you can do better with 8. Our 8 core system is 30% faster than the 16 core machine AMD showed to the press yesterday. I just don't understand how they can claim to be 40% faster", said Francois Piednoel, an Intel engineer present at the show.
Well, now AMD has some explanation to do and sooner rather than later. Because if they can't figure out what happened with those POV-Ray results they showed us, that's the end of it. At the show, Intel also demoed a system with a 45nm Penryn quad-core processor (shipping by year end) that is 40% faster than the current quad-core generation. Wow!

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• barcelona
• intel
• amd
• pov-ray
• uberpulse
• piednoel

[TheGenesisfreak]

8 Intel Cores = $16000000000000000000000000000­000000000

160000000000000000000000000000­00000000 Amd Cores = $8 LOL

[MarlboroClassic]

shut up!! those processor are made in my country Malaysia

[hansvansjon]

@letter3able Got a 6 core myself, and Google Chrome is multi-threaded/GPU rendered. The same for Windows itself. I also use Bunkspeed Pro which uses all cores + GPU rendering.

[letter3able]

@hansvansjon let me know what program you use daily that realy used more than 4

[letter3able]

i dont know why people still bother defending AMDs bad choices (bulldozer= epic fail) until true multi-thread programs come out when you need 2000 cores that dont work together right and produce 6000000deg of heat then its amd all day but if you just want it to work and not need fire proof pants get a real processor from intel 

[demonsparkx]

@TheGenesisfreak LMAO. pretty accurate

[hansvansjon]

The Intel is running 3.0 GHz. Let's clock it down to 2.1Ghz, like the AMD's are. And also, use some high threaded software what actually uses 16 cores or more.

[xSiliconKnightx]

@TheWickedsickness

lol

ever heard of sandy bridge?

or westmere?

or nehalem?

or clarkdale?

guess not. Those chips have been MUCH faster clock per clock than anything AMD since nehalem released in 2008.

[kipstar1990]

@TheWickedsickness thats right AMD pisses over gay intel

[TheWickedsickness]

lol thats funny, what are they testing video conversion or something i only have 4 cores and hd 5 series it takes under 10 minutes to do a full dvd conversion and under 1 minute for dvd to xvid conversions

Alot of these gatherings people will purposely slow down competitors systems and say theres is faster, AMD owns intel i dont care what video u make

[MrGermanBratwurst]

@Taxemicshadow mhm... no there are sooooo many things. Like processing speed. Register size and then RAM, HDD, GPU etc. Pipeline, Data Bandwith :/

I certainly HATE the marketing!!! Always its made with the Ghz! (The same with Graphics card where all companys give their low end 20$ cards 2GB video ram...)

If it would be true, my GTX 570 with only 1,25GB of RAM would be slower than some of the shitty laptop graphics with 2GB :D

Today you really should check benches etc. :)

[SilverWolf9000Pie]

@YourComputerExpert i find you nonsene and naive nature to be amusing ;)