- Sep 21, 2011
- 499 (0.22/day)
|System Name||Multipurpose desktop|
|Processor||AMD Phenom II x6 1605T @ 3.75Ghz , NB @ 2.5|
|Motherboard||Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 (rev 1.0)|
|Cooling||Prolimatech Megahalems Rev. C, 2x120mm CM Blademaster|
|Memory||Corsair Vengeance LP (4x4GB) @1666Mhz 9-9-9-20-24 1T|
|Video Card(s)||ASUS Strix R7-370 4GB OC|
|Storage||2x WD Caviar Black 500GB Sata III in RAID 0|
|Display(s)||Acer S211HL 21.5" 1920x1080|
|Case||Cooler Master Centurion 534+, 3x 120mm CM Sickle Flow|
|Power Supply||Seasonic X650 Gold|
|Software||Windows 7 x64 Home Premium SP1|
It was made for marketing since AMD was wiping the floor with them.
You don't spend billions using illegal and unethical business strategies to knock AMD down b/c you're so secure with your prowess. You do it b/c you're scared.
The day when corporations act completely upright and ethical is the day hell freezes over
As for the effectiveness of hyperthreading, it did work, it just did not provide the kind of performance boost seen in current hyperthreading enabled cpus. Yes, not many applications took advantage of it, but it performed its purpose. Marketing.
The method was improved, announced, more developers came on-board, etc., performance boost. Marketing.
Could have been done years sooner, if Intel so chose. It wasn't necessary, AMD didn't catch up to Conroe.