PureBasic Forums - English

http://wccftech.com/amds-high-performan ... z30mPEfvxX

I don't really see the point to this move. They should be taking what they've learned and improving their design, but abandoning the ship half-way through the race seems like a stupid move and telegraphs how insecure you are.

Good move.

They have realised it isn't going to work, so no choice really but to shelve the project.

I still think its a mistake.

My 8-core FX is a beast in multithreaded applications; exactly what it was designed to be. They should instead keep moving forward and refine the architecture to improve single-threaded IPC.
I'm somewhat biased in that I already invested in AM3+ and was essentially financially locked into the platform. But for a secondary rig serving as a file server, HTPC, 60fps 1080p game recorder, and general video encoder. It does its job well

Zach wrote:I still think its a mistake.

My 8-core FX is a beast in multithreaded applications; exactly what it was designed to be. They should instead keep moving forward and refine the architecture to improve single-threaded IPC.
I'm somewhat biased in that I already invested in AM3+ and was essentially financially locked into the platform. But for a secondary rig serving as a file server, HTPC, 60fps 1080p game recorder, and general video encoder. It does its job well

Your FX wouldn't be anything against a true 8 core FX, even if it was built with the same Bulldozer/Piledriver core performance. AMD tried migrating a server CPU to the desktop for enthusiasts way ahead of its time (most games don't use more than 4 cores). So the FX line failed and now has a bad reputation because of it. You know its sad when a Haswell i3 beats the FX-8350 in almost all of the latest game titles.