AMD does suck.
That's a drastically inaccurate assessment of CPU performance, especially when considering the very thing you mention, 'balance' for the target result.
You are looking at a good bit less than 50% effective overall compute increase from a quad physical core haswell.
Firstly, these are not random mixes of instructions. There's no degraded instruction set selection. Jaguar is tuned rather well for the task and exhibits just how inefficient the standard desktop x86 implementation really is.
Secondly, a virtual core (hyperthreading) is NOT at all equivalent to an additional full thread, even if it's 'only' 2 issue, it will still offer far more reliable (read: consistent output) operation execution . The 2-issue physical core is still OoO and still vastly superior to hoping to catch a free instruction in an already saturated thread specific pipeline through a virtual core.
Intel's bursty multi-purpose arch isn't nearly as effective for rendering consistent output as you and many others like to believe. Really, do some damned research into basic semi-conductor design and the resultant software interaction before you start attempting to use even rough figures.
it doesn't suck, it is 5-10% less than it it's significantly more expensive counterparts.
assassins creed games has a bad optimization for pc they didnt put much effort on it because ubisoft dont care about pc gamers
I can't tell who you are referring to, but I'm happy to walk you through my math.
1). HyperThreading typically gives Intel CPUs a 20% performance increase, tops.
2). A Core i7-4790K clocked at 4.4GHz runs 2.75x faster than 1.6GHz for Kabini. Kabini, of course, has 6-7 cores devoted to rendering as compared to Intel's 4+4.
3). Haswell's IPC is between 1.4 and 2x faster than Jaguar, clock for clock and core for core. This is partly because Jaguar's slow IMC and half-speed L2 cripples the processor's performance in L2 or memory-heavy code. Whether the consoles use different IMCs is unknown, but they *do* use the same half-speed L2 cache.
Let's run the numbers on that.
Intel has 4.8 cores (4C * 1.2x for HT) * 4.4GHz clock speed * 1.7x IPC = 35.9 Performance Fator.
Jaguar has 7 cores (one reserved for OS) * 1.6GHz clock speed * 1x IPC = 11.2x Performance Factor.
The Core i7-4790K should therefore be ~3.2x faster than the seven-core Jaguar.
Yes, that's just an estimate. But the CPU isn't the bottleneck in this game, at least not with significant levels of MSAA enabled.
Statements like these make me want to go to the source for full context. No high level management who would be quoted could possibly make such an assinine statement in public could they? : ( Please tell me this was cherry picked and that they are reasonable about their failures...
AMD used tablet hardware to make the new consoles, AMD makes "APUs" that have 6-8 cores, have better graphics than Intel on the cpu level, but their fastest processor lines up with a i5 processor. Their graphics cards are consistantly 2nd in a 2 card race. I have been getting a lot of negative feedback but it's true. Remember EVERYTHING goes through the CPU first. Also the 4790K is not much more than AMD's fastest processor. AMD video cards are similar in price compared to Nvidia. Windows still runs in the background and needs a minimum of 2GB of ram. You can't look at the minimm specs and say, " I exceed the minimum but short of the recommended, I should be fine." Then when the game looks terrible and has low FPS, you blame the maker and low optimization. If a game requires 6GB, don't expect to get by with 8GB. RAM is cheap, go higher. Once ram is used up, Windows turns to the page file which may be on the SSD or HDD and everything slows down. Those with lower end cards than the new big card on the block, a second one shouldn't cost much.
The thing everyone seems to forget is that consoles are uniform and they know what is doable and what isn't. You can compare to consoles and have the same specs (X1 vs X1 or PS4 vs PS4). You can't compare PC vs PC and get the same results. Way too many hardware and software variables. The game maker has to aim for a middle ground spec wise and try to make a game that can run smoothly on a wide range of settings. COD AW ran fine for me until the new patch and I hit the carrier scene.
(off topic) Coming from serving on a carrier and working on the same system they showed in AW and BO2, pissed me off about the incredible lack of design and research. That system requires a 250 foot clearance radius because of the toxic fumes produced by a launch and weapon mounts cannot be above or on the flight deck. Take a wild guess why... (off topic)
I haven't played AC Unity in a week because of Uplay and my studying for my A+ cert test. But it ran fine for me from what I have seen so far.