The actual problem here is Bulldozer's under-average single-threaded performance that will not help in high-end emulation that uses 4 or fewer cores, and the fact that Bulldozer has a shared FPU between 2 cores. To further discourage the use of a Bulldozer-derived CPU its single-threaded performance is somewhat lower when compared to an equally-clocked Phenom II or Core 2, though the multi-threaded performance of Bulldozer far exceeds the fastest Phenom II or Core 2 offerings. Because of this, it is recommended to completely avoid Bulldozer at all costs. They also share the same high clock speed traits, which might cause confusion and misleading performance conclusions. In other words, the particular architecture of the CPU itself matters more than the clock speed.ĪMD's FX (Bulldozer) CPUs also follows the aforementioned Pentium 4 (NetBurst) example, which has the same issue that the NetBurst-derived CPUs suffer from. This improves the amount of instructions it can output per cycle, which means better performance at a lower clock speed. Even though the Pentium D 940 is clocked significantly higher, the Core 2 Duo E6600 is still faster due to the reduced amount of pipeline stages and a wider execution unit. For example, a Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz will nearly always outperform a Pentium D 940 3.2 GHz. While it is true that a high clock speed is one of the main factors for good CPU performance, it is not always the sole determining factor. However, it is true that a higher CPU clock speed guarantees improved emulation performance. This is usually a common misconception, that stems from lack of detailed information on how a CPU works. Whenever a CPU has a high clock speed (e.g: Pentium 4 580 4 GHz), it does not always necessarily mean that it is powerful.
0 kommentar(er)
