Intel didn't lie about anything, all that happened was that unsubstantiated rumors were proven untrue.
No, AMD does not have "8 cores", it has four modules. Each of those modules has 2 Integer cores + 1 Floating point cores. They also share between them a fetcher, decoder and L2 in each module.
Here is one of AMD's biggest issues as well, they have some of the worst marketing people I've ever seen; in particular their CPU branding division. Just starting off from recent memory, I have no idea which idiot decided to drop the "Fusion" moniker from AMD's APU line. AMD finally had a brandname that people were starting to recognize (similar to Intel's "Core", "Pentium", etc), and then they drop it right before the major release? What the hell were they thinking? Now while Intel's CPU lineup naming is a bit of a mess that I hope they start clearing up in the next iteration's release, but AMD had a pretty good and simple branding going on: FX-4xxx "4 core (two module)" FX-6xxx "6 core" FX-8xxx "8 core" FX-x1xx "First generation (Bulldozer)" FX-x3xx "Second Generation (Piledriver)" Simple and clean. They have two more spaces for these two new CPU's in the form of FX-8370 and FX-8390, and what do they do? They completely destroy one of the best things going for them by suddenly jumping, for no apparent reason, to FX-9xxx. Worse, they also screw up the second series of numbers by going to FX-x5xx while still being Piledriver. Sometimes I wonder what actually goes on in AMD's headquarters.
if only intel would do 5ghz stock cpu, or atlest do 4ghz Stock speeds havent advanced much in the last 5 + years
Well done AMD I take my hat to ya. This might help them. I wonder what the benchmarks are going to be vs the i7 4770k.
It's called clutching at straws without considering long term implications. I'm sure the idea was simple, "Let's draw in consumers by pumping up the clock speeds and slapping a large number on it". It's just a waste, honestly. The person who buys something like this is either an extreme enthusiast who likes to tweak, or someone who doesn't really know what they're buying and falls for marketing hype. I'm not saying it's going to be a bad product, but considering they'll probably try to charge $250-300 for it, it just doesn't make sense. There's literally no point for this to exist.
i gotta say if it isnt default clock at 5ghz but boost or turbo maybe it shouldnt be called a 5ghz cpu.
Intel tried higher clock speeds with netburst, we saw what happened with their 3.8 stock speeds. Intel has worked on core efficiency with more and better instruction sets, and better implemented nb controller on die, more and better cache management, overall fixing what was broken with netburst.
netburst uke2: I hate that name, it should be buried along with the Nvidia FX5000 series cards :bang:
"AMD continues to push the envelope when it comes to desktop capabilities and power performance" am I the only one who thinks this statement is hypocritical? amd hasn't pushed any envelope since the begining of intel's core 2 quad. I already assume that this 5 ghz cpu will be just an overclocked 8350, maybe with ridiculously insignificant architectural changes. slap on amd's water cooling and voila.. marketing. nevertheless I'm curious to see this one perform. it would be nice to compete with the high-end i7s, but such a feat seems just impossible considering amd's really bad architecture.
Why the hell are you comparing AMD's second best to Intel's best? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284 AMD FX-8350 = $200 Intel i7-4770k = $350
Why? Because an 8320 costs $50 less than an 8350 but will still overclock to 4.8Ghz. I should ask "why the hell" are you comparing an FX with an i7? Yes a 3770k performs better than FX but costs nearly twice as much. And also why are you quoting prices from NewEgg that are only relevant for North America? If you think hardware costs the same all around the world - it doesn't. This is assuming users leave their systems running 24hrs a day with Cool n Quiet disabled, hardly typical usage.
I leave my system on all day. imagine the difference with that 220w joke of a processor amd is gonna release. amd needs to mount their heads on straight, they're failing again and again. and they market this as an achievement, being able to hit 5 ghz. i find this hilarious, it's even worse than the netburst era where a 2 ghz athlon would compete with a 1 ghz higher intel counterpart. and I seriously doubt there will be much overclocking headroom. I'll be surprised if it surpasses 5.2 ghz.
Imagine what difference? 220W TDP is for all cores 100% loaded, do you normally run your CPU like that all day long? My entire system draws 132W from the wall when idle......
do you think 50% load for a 220w cpu draws the same amount of power as 50% load for a 95w cpu? it doesn't work that way. idle power draw may not be much higher for an overclocked cpu, but the moment it gets a slight load it will ramp up. that's where the big difference lies. and I do keep my cpu at 100% for extended periods since I'm into 3d rendering. so yes, it will really make a big difference. amd's current architecture is bad, there's no way you can insinuate otherwise. my 2600k at 4.8 ghz draws much less than 220w, it's actually around 150 if I recall correctly. and it still outperforms an 8350 at the same frequency, and will most likely outperform this new cpu. this is why I hate what's going on. intel is going insane with the high-end prices. amd needs to ramp up their game and keep intel in check. I see you have an 8320 at 4.8. what's the powerdraw under load? I'm really curious.