AMD AM1 Platform Aimed at Budget Computing Under $400

Status
Not open for further replies.

pcgaming98

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
1,067
0
11,660
135
I'll probably get banned / warned for this but...AMD!? SERIOUSLY!? WHERE ARE YOUR ENTHUSIAST CPUs!? GET BACK IN THE GAME FFS!!!!Just angry that my beloved AMD is actually going down....
 

Kamen_BG

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2011
1,580
1
20,160
177
I'll probably get banned / warned for this but...AMD!? SERIOUSLY!? WHERE ARE YOUR ENTHUSIAST CPUs!? GET BACK IN THE GAME FFS!!!!Just angry that my beloved AMD is actually going down....
Nope, you won't be banned.AMD however, abandoned the high-end CPU market as they see they can not compete.Their Streamroller archetecture, while faster than Piledriver, is still SLOWER than the old Phenom II's at the same clock speed.
 

icemunk

Distinguished
Aug 1, 2009
628
0
18,990
2
AMD is just sitting on the high-end market, keeping a slight pace with Intel; Intel has also stalled the highend market as well, with only 5-10% gains lately. Everyone is focusing on small-form factor, and low power consumption these days unfortuntely. I'd love to see Intel drop a huge increase onto the enthusist market, they certainly good, but they're just sticking to modest increases instead.
 

pcgaming98

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
1,067
0
11,660
135


I know but they gotta try man! I fully understand the financial problems and risks of making a high end CPU but to be a good competitor, you gotta stretch across all sectors of the market. If only AMD took a grand old Phenom chip, dissected it, and figured out where they went wrong.... I dont want to have to resort to Intel to get better performance, as fanboyish as that sounds, I guess I am a fanboy of AMD. I just want them back in their golden days. Intel's making these 5 percent increases because there's no competition, so they dont have to bring anything big. If AMD stepped up to the plate and brought a gigantic turkey, it'd make Intel have to cook a bigger one that has to be delicious.

 

amk-aka-Phantom

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2011
3,004
0
20,860
31
Ugh. I may be a hypocrite with my AMD based NAS, but I have it only because I couldn't find any other Intel-based board that did the same things. Now there are - with Haswell Celerons etc. Anyhow, I think that AMD lost on all CPU markets. Intel crushed them in enthusiast and server markets, mid-range and low-power. This is just fumbling for SOMETHING. Their most poweful laptop "APU"s can barely compete with ULV Core i3s and desktop ones are power-hungry fake-multicores (though the last part is true for laptop ones too).As a sysadmin/tech support, I am DISGUSTED by this low-end tech. People buy netbooks etc with Atoms and E350s and then want me to "make them faster". No, installing XP won't do it. Or Ubuntu. Or anything, because you can't make a bad CPU perform good with modern software, especially when paired with a laptop HDD! The only instance I got good performance out of low-power system is when I installed my NAS's OS on a SanDisk 32 GB ReadyCache SSD - the AMD E-450 in it is then suitable for all kinds of office work and watching movies. But even Skype loading 1-month message history can max out both cores and bring the system to a stall. Pathetic! Stop making this junk, AMD!
 

pcgaming98

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
1,067
0
11,660
135


AMD's processors may not perform as good as Intel's but "fake multi cores?" No..., the way AMD meant for it to work was, they paired two cores into a module to reduce latency between the two cores, but the latency was instead increased from one module to another. It was a mere fluke that was mis-interpretted and wrongly sought into, but it's not a fake multi core. It's still very real.

No matter how fast Intel's cores are, there's no replacing a Quad Core with a dual core, that's out of the story for me. Even though AMD's falling over its shoe laces, I'm gonna stick with them til the end. After my Pentium T4500 died, that was it for Intel for me, that processor lasted 3 months and it caught fire somehow. On the other hand, I've been doing some light gaming on my AMD E-450 for over a year. And I'm about finished with investing in my AMD based build with an Athlon II X4 760k and R9 270.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Intel is still pretty far behind AMD on at least one front: integrated graphics. GT3e is Intel's best, chips with it cost $400-600 but their graphics performance is barely on par with ~$120 AMD APUs or 750k + bargain-bin GPU.

AMD would likely be in a much better position if TSMC and GloFo were not so many years behind Intel with their 14-22nm process.
 

siman0

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2011
89
0
18,630
0
umm you relies if a CPU can do more calculations per clock a dual core can be faster than a quad core. Multi core is just the allowance of more threads of data processed per clock. So it can load balance between more bits of data. The problems are that we have crap loads of programs/processes and not enough threads to handle them all simultaneously. There are a few different ways to go about fixing this problem make the CPU faster so it can process more threads at a faster rate (more GHz worst idea), add more cores to (allow more threads to be processed simultaneously), or find a different type of processor that can handle more threads (AMDs idea with HSA). A GPU has shit tons of individual processors its more like an ARM processor. This would allow data to be offloaded from the CPU and onto the GPU. Then you ask why cant we just make a computer run off a GPU. well we could but the processes and calculations an ALU can do are much simpler (why they are faster, its more of a this is what this core is designed for). An X86 processor can do mind boggling complex computations compared to a simple core in a GPU so its still needed. This and we are stating to have more and more problems making CPUs smaller. So a different solution is needed to get commutations done in a timely matter the cheapest solution is to use what you already have available and GPUs sit idling most of the time so why not use them. AMD is actually being smart with their cards and everything is stating to flip to Open CL and HSA type of solutions.
 

pcgaming98

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
1,067
0
11,660
135


It'll be quicker per clock but it wont be able to handle as many processes. No matter how fast it is, that CPU usage will still shoot up when you open a couple of things.

 

the1kingbob

Distinguished
May 27, 2011
153
0
18,680
0
AMD, not including the high TDP chips, competes pretty well in all the areas they wish to compete. It is true they don't sell chips that are $500+, but who buys those? Most I have seen are used in high end computing, not gaming. The few that are used in gaming are for insane machines with multi-high resolution screens and multi monitors. AMD has been struggling, they need to focus (as they are doing) on markets that gives them a stable platform. I think they are doing great on the graphics front, with the exception of the coin market driving up prices.
 

anathema_forever

Honorable
Jan 12, 2013
98
0
10,660
5
i like this new amd, I would rather not buy a 300watt cpu thats not even close to competitive with intel at a much lower wattage. But inexpensive computers that don't draw a lot of wattage I like. I stopped being a gamer when I stopped being a kid, so 300+ gpu's and 200+ cpu's are no longer something that floats my boat.
 

pcgaming98

Honorable
Jan 24, 2014
1,067
0
11,660
135


When I say high end, I'm not talkin 7 GHz, 20 core processors. I'm talkin speed efficient with good TDP processors, processors that are really strong, and not just on the frequency front. After the Piledriver architecture released, AMD died (not that they didn't die at Bulldozer cause they did), they stopped making fast CPUs and started on these all in one solutions and stuff. Makes me cringe having to resort to a Pentium or Celeron for budget reasons.

 

siman0

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2011
89
0
18,630
0
sorry for the double post work computer are slowly dieing. @pc gaming guy it would expand the amount of processes processed per second (over a given amount of time) just to get the equivalent amount of performance it would have to be a dramatic up clock.
 

bjaminnyc

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2011
621
0
19,060
45
This product line addresses probably the largest portion of computer buyers. Most people don't need much as far as CPU power if the video card/apu can render HD video. Instead of AMD trying to win the 100 meter dash it looks like they're playing the long game. In the not too distant future a <$50 CPU will be more than sufficient for >90% of the population.
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
0


No it's not.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

With the number of light PC users switching to 7-10" tablets, smartphones, AiOs and transformables with ~$40 SoCs, we are pretty much there already. The main things tablets tend to be missing are external connectivity (mainly USB2/3 host ports), a little more RAM for more flexible multi-tasking and fully fledged desktop-style productivity apps for use with a mouse and keyboard instead of over-sized touch-oriented UI.
 

assasin32

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2008
1,356
22
19,515
96
With the number of light PC users switching to 7-10" tablets, smartphones, AiOs and transformables with ~$40 SoCs, we are pretty much there already. The main things tablets tend to be missing are external connectivity (mainly USB2/3 host ports), a little more RAM for more flexible multi-tasking and fully fledged desktop-style productivity apps for use with a mouse and keyboard instead of over-sized touch-oriented UI.
We already have the tech to be using cheap SoC computers and get good performance out of them. Tablets/smartphones were mentioned but I use a Samsung Chromebook and if all you want to do is browse the internet, type up papers, youtube it will do all that without issue and be pretty dang quick about it. To give you the car analogy it's like taking a prius hybrid gas/electric motor and strapping it to a go kart, it's no longer slow. Heck I am an enthusiast by anyones definition and I am getting by just fine with that and the AMD 750k I picked up for $70 awhile back. I have family members running bottom of the line dual cores which are quite old and are doing fine. I'd argue that AMD focusing on the mid/low end is a smart move, so few of us actually need the $500+ CPU's it makes more sense to design things for the masses.
 

MajinCry

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2011
958
0
19,010
24
Piledriver is on-par with the Phenom IIs clock for clock. Various benchmarks show this.But they're different architectures; Bulldozer, Piledriver and Steamroller are intended to be clocked higher. So comparing clockspeeds? Stupid move.IIRC, the Phenom IIs REALLY guzzled power. Again, IIRC, for the same level of performance as the Phenom IIs, AMD halved power consumption with their FX processors.Nevermind the fact that AMD has around 10% of the market share. Bashing AMD for not being as good as Intel? Hmm.
 

Kamen_BG

Distinguished
Jul 12, 2011
1,580
1
20,160
177
ing down....[/quote]Nope, you won't be banned.AMD however, abandoned the high-end CPU market as they see they can not compete.Their Streamroller archetecture, while faster than Piledriver, is still SLOWER than the old Phenom II's at the same clock speed.[/quotemsg]No it's not.[/quote]I know you're dissapointed, as am I, but the A10 7850K is proven to be slower than the Phenom II 980BE more often than not.The Phenom doesn't boost and is also 5 year archetecture.It's sad, really.(the review I could find that compared both was that of hardwarecanucks)
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
I am DISGUSTED by this low-end tech. People buy netbooks etc with Atoms and E350s and then want me to "make them faster". you can't make a bad CPU perform good with modern software, especially when paired with a laptop HDD!
Those chips are not BAD - hey are slow, designed for low-cost portable systems. Not a full blown desktop or notebook. Companies like HP and Dell HAVE chooses to use these super cheap CPUs to build these computers. They have put tiny slot-less motherboards into Desktop cases even!
 

silverblue

Distinguished
Jul 22, 2009
1,199
4
19,285
0
A more valid comparison would be with the 3870K as that lacks L3 cache. Unfortunately, we're still awaiting an FX-based Steamroller CPU so the effect of having L3 is largely unknown.
 

somebodyspecial

Honorable
Sep 20, 2012
1,459
0
11,310
20


So if everything is starting to flip to OpenCL & HSA you should be able to give me a list of 10 things I can do on both off the top of your head right?

List/links please. And no, bitcoin crap, F@H crap etc doesn't count. I would like to see a list of REAL stuff I can make money with, and preferably something it beats CUDA in otherwise there won't be much of a shot of dethroning NV's 90% workstation market share ;) I know Adobe uses OpenCL (and everyone is afraid to show Adobe with OpenCL AMD vs. Cuda NV), but not much more besides a few plugins (luxrender etc that run in many apps, so I guess you could cite those). I believe toms/anandtech might like to make you BELIEVE everything is going OpenCL but reality is AMD is gaining nothing in share (and those same apps they are gunning for ALREADY run Cuda), and NV's GPU revenues were UP last quarter while PC sales are off 11.5%. At the same time, AMD showed nothing financially except from 10mil x $12ea console chips shipped out the door which is their $120mil income before all the crap gets taken out.

HSA has a long way to go, nothing flipping yet. Same is true for NV with Cuda6/Maxwell. On AMD side they need software but have hardware, while on NV side they have software (cuda6) but are waiting on Maxwell hardware.

No comment on which side has the advantage there in the way they both went, but I'll bet on the guy who has more money and zero debt every time vs. the exact opposite. Even if the little guy has better tech, the rich guy can afford to block it, pay people off, collect all the profits for years until the little guy sues and wins. Like Intel vs. AMD while AMD better tech for 3 years. Intel paid everyone to NOT use AMD, threatened board makers with no future chipsets for supporting AMD (Asus had boards with no silkscreen in white boxes, no name on them, no ASUS etc), and collected 60 BILLION over 10yrs PROFITS. Then the suit ends and they pay AMD a paltry Billion for breaking the law...LOL. I can see why all rich companies break the law. So would I, every day if I knew I'd collect 60Billion and pay you 1.25B 10yrs later to go away while cementing my company and screwing yours into the ground. That is a GREAT deal.

AMD had a 20%+ share back then, and should have had $12Billion handed to them for those years of screwing them. At least that would have been proportional to what they screwed AMD out of with all the nasty payoffs/threats etc. At worst they should have been given 6B as they've never really had below 10% share. Maybe Intel paid some judges too? :( At 1.25B you are slapping them on the wrists for basically company MURDER. Even at 6B I'd say that, as that gives nothing for the act but merely covers much of the damage they did cheating. In order to stop companies from doing this again you need to make it so there is no financial gain. I would have liked to see them give AMD 30B+.

Just one of the reasons I want WINTEL to go down in flames or at least given MASSIVE haircuts via competition from ARM/insert OS name here (take your pick, linux/android/steamos combo or whatever else you'd like quadboots etc? :))...At worst, we end up with far better advancements for a few years until WINTEL figures out how to beat them. At best we end up with more options, and better cross platform stuff as they move to OpenGL/HTML5/WebGL/Java etc that WINTEL doesn't control. That better cross platform stuff should allow more time to be spent on the games themselves (rather than on porting).
 

bassbeast

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2010
74
0
18,640
3
I know but they gotta try man! I fully understand the financial problems and risks of making a high end CPU but to be a good competitor, you gotta stretch across all sectors of the market. If only AMD took a grand old Phenom chip, dissected it, and figured out where they went wrong.... I dont want to have to resort to Intel to get better performance, as fanboyish as that sounds, I guess I am a fanboy of AMD. I just want them back in their golden days. Intel's making these 5 percent increases because there's no competition, so they dont have to bring anything big. If AMD stepped up to the plate and brought a gigantic turkey, it'd make Intel have to cook a bigger one that has to be delicious.
Actually they had run into a dead end with Phenom II, and this is from someone who has a Phenom II X6 and loved the arch. What they need to do is the exact same thing Intel did, go back to their roots...the K8. A die shrunk K8 with some optimizations would be to AMD what Core was to intel, a chance to start fresh and give them a real kick in the pants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS