- Status
hardcore_gamer
Distinguished
- Mar 27, 2010
- 540
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]welshmousepk[/nom]Finally, a date. I was still expecting september, so just ordered the parts for a new AM3 build. damn, guess ill be rebuilding sooner than i hoped.[/citation]
you mean AM3+ ?
you mean AM3+ ?
[citation][nom]hardcore_gamer[/nom]you mean AM3+ ?[/citation]
Though you can't stick the am3+ CPUs in AM3 slot, you will at least be able to drop an am3 cpu into an am3+ mobo. It's something at least and more than Intel has offered us in ages.
I don't build $~1000 rigs every 3-5 years, instead I make a ~$6-700 dollar one every 2 years or so and hand them down or sell them off. For this reason I've gone towards the AMD side since I built my athlon 2500+. The most PC-intensive task I do is gaming, and a cheaper AMD chip and mobo frees up more room for a better graphics card, which in almost all cases is a better idea. Now with AMD really concentrating on APUs and how they'll boost the performance of graphics on your system, from your netbook all the way to your desktop, is just a fantastic decision. It's a sector of the market which AMD has dominated and will now look to nearly wipe out Intel.
Though you can't stick the am3+ CPUs in AM3 slot, you will at least be able to drop an am3 cpu into an am3+ mobo. It's something at least and more than Intel has offered us in ages.
I don't build $~1000 rigs every 3-5 years, instead I make a ~$6-700 dollar one every 2 years or so and hand them down or sell them off. For this reason I've gone towards the AMD side since I built my athlon 2500+. The most PC-intensive task I do is gaming, and a cheaper AMD chip and mobo frees up more room for a better graphics card, which in almost all cases is a better idea. Now with AMD really concentrating on APUs and how they'll boost the performance of graphics on your system, from your netbook all the way to your desktop, is just a fantastic decision. It's a sector of the market which AMD has dominated and will now look to nearly wipe out Intel.
dalta centauri
Distinguished
- Apr 1, 2010
- 885
- 0
- 19,010
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]The only way I'd ever buy an APU is if it was in the Netbook.[/citation]
Although the APU shouldn't increase the price greatly, if it were to increase performance between dedicated and integrated AMD graphics it would be great in my opinion. Of course, it could end up like their low end cards that did the same thing, I just hope it doesn't have a strict guideline of what you can pair up (if you can).
Although the APU shouldn't increase the price greatly, if it were to increase performance between dedicated and integrated AMD graphics it would be great in my opinion. Of course, it could end up like their low end cards that did the same thing, I just hope it doesn't have a strict guideline of what you can pair up (if you can).
dark_lord69
Splendid
- Jun 6, 2006
- 3,227
- 8
- 22,015
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Bulldozer won't come close to touching SB.[/citation]
Can you say fanboy!?
No one actually knows what the real world performance will be like because they haven't been released yet. And even if they aren't quiet as fast it doesn't matter because AMD offers a better value and the price will likely be a lot lower.
Can you say fanboy!?
No one actually knows what the real world performance will be like because they haven't been released yet. And even if they aren't quiet as fast it doesn't matter because AMD offers a better value and the price will likely be a lot lower.
"octacon72
The only way I'd ever buy an APU is if it was in the Netbook"
so you wont be buying a chip with on die graphics then....... on wait doesn't sandy bridge have......
The only way I'd ever buy an APU is if it was in the Netbook"
so you wont be buying a chip with on die graphics then....... on wait doesn't sandy bridge have......
Well sweet, this gives me time to save up some money by the time the reviews come out. Here's hoping that we'll have some competitive products lined up.
Though with AMD trying to make octo-core standard, I'm not sure if that's either them trying to get a competitive edge against Intel, or if they're compensating for something.
Though with AMD trying to make octo-core standard, I'm not sure if that's either them trying to get a competitive edge against Intel, or if they're compensating for something.
@wiyosaya
i agree, the slide is very iffy and it couldn't be a very recent roadmap if 2010 is on there, at best this was created 3rd quarter 2010 at worst this was created pre 2010, the slide also contradicts claims of a June 2011 release, it clearly shows bulldozer does not arrive until 2012
i agree, the slide is very iffy and it couldn't be a very recent roadmap if 2010 is on there, at best this was created 3rd quarter 2010 at worst this was created pre 2010, the slide also contradicts claims of a June 2011 release, it clearly shows bulldozer does not arrive until 2012
[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]BD will make SB look like a 486.[/citation]
Do you mean like the 486 looked when it came out? As in twice as fast per clock as the 386? Do you mean with integration of the FPU and cache controller, so it was much easier to implement? The 486 was an extraordinary processor, so you're probably right.
A lot of people keep saying it's not going to compete with the SB, but it will. It will not be as fast, of course, but that's not the only way to compete. The market for the very fastest chips isn't that big anyway. The junk AMD sells now can compete in part of the market, and the design is nothing short of horrible. It's trash. Now, let's say I can improve the performance per watt, and per die size pretty dramatically, but still not reach the ultimate performance of SB, or even get that close. That's still a competitive processor in a large part of the market. Plus, AMD gets to boast about their additional cores, even though it's bogus and they aren't real cores. For Joe Budweiser, they won't know the difference. He thinks the 8 core AMD has twice the cores of the i7 2600, at least that's what guy a Best Buy will tell him, because he'll probably know HT is logical, but probably won't understand and AMD core is less than a real core.
It doesn't have to reach the performance of the SB to be competitive. It's just got to be significantly better than the current product, particularly with regards to performance/size. The current product is so bad, it has to be, and AMD has been surviving selling this rubbish. Plus, the weird core/module stuff from AMD isn't purely marketing, and can offer some real advantages in the all imporant performance/watt and performance/cost areas, in a significant amount of applications.
No one with an IQ over 80 believes the performance with beat Intel's in most workloads. No one over an IQ of 100 thinks it has to, in order to be attractive and competitive.
Do you mean like the 486 looked when it came out? As in twice as fast per clock as the 386? Do you mean with integration of the FPU and cache controller, so it was much easier to implement? The 486 was an extraordinary processor, so you're probably right.
A lot of people keep saying it's not going to compete with the SB, but it will. It will not be as fast, of course, but that's not the only way to compete. The market for the very fastest chips isn't that big anyway. The junk AMD sells now can compete in part of the market, and the design is nothing short of horrible. It's trash. Now, let's say I can improve the performance per watt, and per die size pretty dramatically, but still not reach the ultimate performance of SB, or even get that close. That's still a competitive processor in a large part of the market. Plus, AMD gets to boast about their additional cores, even though it's bogus and they aren't real cores. For Joe Budweiser, they won't know the difference. He thinks the 8 core AMD has twice the cores of the i7 2600, at least that's what guy a Best Buy will tell him, because he'll probably know HT is logical, but probably won't understand and AMD core is less than a real core.
It doesn't have to reach the performance of the SB to be competitive. It's just got to be significantly better than the current product, particularly with regards to performance/size. The current product is so bad, it has to be, and AMD has been surviving selling this rubbish. Plus, the weird core/module stuff from AMD isn't purely marketing, and can offer some real advantages in the all imporant performance/watt and performance/cost areas, in a significant amount of applications.
No one with an IQ over 80 believes the performance with beat Intel's in most workloads. No one over an IQ of 100 thinks it has to, in order to be attractive and competitive.
I think BD will be as fast or faster than SD.. why?
Because its manufactured in 32nm = less heat and higher clock speed..
previous 6 core phenom are 45nm thus making it much slower but hey they still can squeezer performance on them making them a good rival on i5 750 ++
BD will be a very good overclockable cpu IMO period..
Lastly: THEY ONLY name their CPU's FX chipsets if they are really superior CPU's.. after long years of waiting they made a revolutionary CPU that will come a long way. Not just increasing the bus speed etc etc.. they incorporated a GPU like processor built in.
Congratulations AMD
Because its manufactured in 32nm = less heat and higher clock speed..
previous 6 core phenom are 45nm thus making it much slower but hey they still can squeezer performance on them making them a good rival on i5 750 ++
BD will be a very good overclockable cpu IMO period..
Lastly: THEY ONLY name their CPU's FX chipsets if they are really superior CPU's.. after long years of waiting they made a revolutionary CPU that will come a long way. Not just increasing the bus speed etc etc.. they incorporated a GPU like processor built in.
Congratulations AMD
I think BD will be as fast or faster than SD.. why?
Because its manufactured in 32nm = less heat and higher clock speed..
previous 6 core phenom are 45nm thus making it much slower but hey they still can squeezer performance on them making them a good rival on i5 750 ++
BD will be a very good overclockable cpu IMO period..
Lastly: THEY ONLY name their CPU's FX chipsets if they are really superior CPU's.. after long years of waiting they made a revolutionary CPU that will come a long way. Not just increasing the bus speed etc etc.. they incorporated a GPU like processor built in.
Congratulations AMD
Because its manufactured in 32nm = less heat and higher clock speed..
previous 6 core phenom are 45nm thus making it much slower but hey they still can squeezer performance on them making them a good rival on i5 750 ++
BD will be a very good overclockable cpu IMO period..
Lastly: THEY ONLY name their CPU's FX chipsets if they are really superior CPU's.. after long years of waiting they made a revolutionary CPU that will come a long way. Not just increasing the bus speed etc etc.. they incorporated a GPU like processor built in.
Congratulations AMD
@xenol
octo core (actually 4 APU core, and to make things a little more confusing with AMD version of hyper threading thrown in the os would see 16) wont be the standard, the fact that it gains the FX moniker dictates that will be in the performance class, it makes for an interesting game..... AMD market segmentation may well be aimed to prevent direct comparison with intel's lineup
1APU < i3 < 2APU < i5 < 3APU < i7 < 4APU????
hahahahahaha and i realize the heat that this would draw for this comment, but it's an interesting discussion point
octo core (actually 4 APU core, and to make things a little more confusing with AMD version of hyper threading thrown in the os would see 16) wont be the standard, the fact that it gains the FX moniker dictates that will be in the performance class, it makes for an interesting game..... AMD market segmentation may well be aimed to prevent direct comparison with intel's lineup
1APU < i3 < 2APU < i5 < 3APU < i7 < 4APU????
hahahahahaha and i realize the heat that this would draw for this comment, but it's an interesting discussion point
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
geekapproved
Splendid
- Dec 10, 2010
- 8,766
- 0
- 31,460
Nothing to see here folks, just a bunch of little fanboy's arguing about how their Daddy can beat up your Daddy.
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,959
- 76
- 45,290
[citation][nom]yyk71200[/nom]Sorry, 5x times power per clock Sandy Bridge can do.[/citation]
too late fan boy EPIC FAIL
if it turns out to be slower than intels chips then AMD did pick the perfect name for them. slow like a real bulldozer
too late fan boy EPIC FAIL
if it turns out to be slower than intels chips then AMD did pick the perfect name for them. slow like a real bulldozer
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]too late fan boy EPIC FAILif it turns out to be slower than intels chips then AMD did pick the perfect name for them. slow like a real bulldozer[/citation]
You are just envying that AMD finally brings out a superior product. If you want to see a bench, check this out: http://scarletwhore.com/?p=3277
You are just envying that AMD finally brings out a superior product. If you want to see a bench, check this out: http://scarletwhore.com/?p=3277
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News RTX 5090 cable overheats to 150 degrees Celsius — Uneven current distribution likely the culprit- Started by Admin
- Replies: 92
-
News Nvidia's RTX 5090 power cables may be doomed to burn
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
News RTX 5080 power cable allegedly melts at PSU — Redditor reports another 50-series failure
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 43
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram