AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[juanrga]

From all the comment on this that you have posted, you basically are saying that the PS4 is equivalent to a system with an i7 Extreme CPU and a 7990 overclocked. Threads are not all of what gives performance, Hell, its probably on a fraction, if not less than what it seems. Its all in what the game needs, and for console games these days, you really don't need something spectacular.

Very probable, ignoring all the supercharged architecture in the PS4, the PS4 already performs like a i7 with a GTX-780 for games will 3GB VRAM or less. If all the supercharged architecture is used, then the PS4 will be ahead. Several developers already claimed that its performance is ahead of gaming PCs.

Heh, no. I don't believe anyone for a second who says this thing will be more powerful than gaming PCs. It might be equivalent to mid range PCs (FX 6300, Radeon 7870 GHz, 8GB RAM) but it's a little bit of a stretch to say it can beat anything more than that.

The PS4 is very superior to that. In fact, the early PS4 dev. kit already used an eight core FX chip and a faster graphics card.

According to my estimations, minimum PC will be an i7, GTX-780, and 12GB RAM, but in the long run, when developers will be optimizing the hardware of the PS4 and exploting its new architecture, you will need a better gaming PC.

Several people is noticing that a GTX-Titan and HD 7990 are safe choices for a future gaming PC.

 

[montosaurous]

You're comparing a $400 system to what, a $1500 machine? Yes Sony and Microsoft will be selling at a loss, and I'm sure AMD gave them a nice discount, but even then it is absurd to compare a cheap little console to a big expensive gaming PC. Consoles were never faster before, what makes you think they will be now? This hype does remind me a bit of Bulldozer and claims that it will beat Intel's best. Same with Steamroller. I think the most you will see is a jump similar to the one from the Phenom to the Phenom II. And even then I think Skylake will blow Steamroller and Excavator away. And I would really love to know where you get this information about consoles beating PCs honestly. NOBODY else I talk to seems to think so. Just enjoy the consoles for their games and cheaper prices, as it should be. And enjoy the PC for not only it's power, but freedom and controls.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Completely agree with Monto. It wouldn't make sense for a system to be that cheap and have that much power. If it were true, then I would just buy a PS4 and re-download windows 7 and games onto it.

When it does come out, or even before hand, someone needs to use it like a PC, and see how it works. As far as I'm concerned, consoles should never beat high end PCs, especially for such a low price.

In an estimation, it could probably be similar to Laptop / Mobile hardware, where it has the same name and "same specs", but just doesn't work as good because its a mobile version.

 

[montosaurous]

Windows uses CPU resources and RAM, but not too much with the GPU besides Aero so I don't see what your point is of Windows screwing everything up. And not all developers will spend their time optimizing the games for the consoles, so your argument is void. They have deadlines too, you know.

 

[jdwii]

Emulating games is not an accurate way to measure performance when comparing hardware if that's what you meant ,

juanrga is wrong when it comes to the I7 part that PS4 was running a demo that was pretty impressive but it still skipped a decent amount while not looking as good. That said for 400$ its still good hardware. but besides that he's trying to make it sound better by saying a I7 when in reality an I5 performs the same, i don't know if he owns a gaming rig i do and i can admit for gaming the PS4 is clearly better than my PC, but when those CPU cores get taxed or you get a somewhat lazy developer it's EXTREMELY possible that because this design is so close to the PC's using x86 and a 7870-7830 that there will be less optimizations this time around. This is completly different than the 360/PS3 in terms of hardware where optimizations had to be done since games are made on PC's anyways first then put on consoles

 

[8350rocks]

In my estimation...you guys are think about it like this:

50 GFLOPS CPU + 4 TFLOPS GPU = 4.05 TFLOPS > 1.84 TFLOPS.

Which works without HSA and hUMA.

However, with HSA and hUMA, what ends up happening...is the 50 GFLOPS CPU now has the capability for the 4 TFLOPS GPU to run things equally that run better in parallel.

Now, granted, coding is going to play a major role in how quickly this change comes around. Because the advantages are in the software that runs on the hardware itself.

However, you can have 8 cores @ 1.6-2.0 GHz, and not have any kind of CPU bottleneck because those cores are all running what they can run efficiently, and the GPU is picking up the slack.

See, without HSA and hUMA, you end up with tasks assigned to the 50 GFLOPS CPU that get little to no benefit from all 4 TFLOPS of GPU power.

Maybe that explanation makes more sense.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Mathematically, it may make sense. It all comes down to reality. Once it comes out, tests like that need to be performed to reveal the truth. As far as making the GPU do more work, wouldn't that also correlate into more heat?

 

[cowboy44mag]

montosaurous and GOM3RPLY3R are basically assuming that because you paid a lot more for a system it can do everything better than anything else. That is simply flawed logic. No one is saying that a PS4 can totally outperform an i7 at everything. What is in debate is weather or not the PS4 can run games better than an i7. When it comes to gaming alone the PS4 isn't going to have to worry about resources being hogged up by common programs Windows, firewalls, antivirus suites, ect... the PS4 will only have to run the game and a few background processes. When it comes to simply running the games the PS4 may outperform an i7 of this generation.

When they build a console system they build them to hopefully have a life cycle of 8 years. Most people who build a gaming PC hope to get 4 years out of it, but hardly ever do. The reason is because along the way we upgrade the ram, psu, motherboard, gpu, maybe cpu... the system at the end of that 4 years is hardly the system we started out with. The Xbox 360 is 8 years old and still running the latest video games (albeit at low settings). Could your gaming PC from 2005 run the latest games as well, and at what cost?

Eventually gaming PCs will be much more powerful than the PS4 for running games as we will be doing constant upgrades along the way. The end of this year and beginning of next we may see that the only PCs capable of outperforming the PS4 in gaming are ultra expensive top of the line systems. But don't assume just because you paid much more for your PC it is vastly superior to the PS4 in gaming.

Totally off topic but proving my point on cost/performance: a shiny new S&W revolver will easily cost $200-500 more than a Ruger, however a Ruger will outperform it. Rugers will shoot just as accurately and can be loaded with +p+ rounds. Try that with a S&W and you'll be picking you nose with your wrist.

 

[montosaurous]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

 

[cowboy44mag]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

Lower than the lowest possible PC settings for gaming PCs of 2013, what about gaming PCs of 2005? The Xbox 360 is INTEL, just in case you don't know, and I'm saying that when it debuted in 2005 it would have taken a top of the line computer of that generation to best it at pure gaming. Not running all the background processes a PC has to but pure gaming it would have taken a $1500+ rig to match the Xbox 360 in 2005. Your comparing computer systems 8 years newer. That is why I said the computers would eventually become more powerful than the PS4, through upgrading and new tech -maybe by mid 2014, but at launch simply for playing games the PS4 is going to be hard to beat.

 

[esrever]

Can we get on topic? no need for that stuff in here. At least the intel vs AMD stuff has something to do with AMD.

 

[montosaurous]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

Lower than the lowest possible PC settings for gaming PCs of 2013, what about gaming PCs of 2005? The Xbox 360 is INTEL, just in case you don't know, and I'm saying that when it debuted in 2005 it would have taken a top of the line computer of that generation to best it at pure gaming. Not running all the background processes a PC has to but pure gaming it would have taken a $1500+ rig to match the Xbox 360 in 2005. Your comparing computer systems 8 years newer. That is why I said the computers would eventually become more powerful than the PS4, through upgrading and new tech -maybe by mid 2014, but at launch simply for playing games the PS4 is going to be hard to beat.

I would like you to show me a $700-$1000 computer from 2005 losing to the Xbox 360 in 2005-2008 games.

 

[mayankleoboy1]

http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1306150-PTS-INTELHAS05

Benchmarks of various FOSS softwares, compiled with Haswell specific flags, compared to Core2 , SB ,and IB specific optimizations.

Points of note :

1. majority of the benchmarks show no benefit, or a small regression. Yes, a small regression.
2. Only C-Ray and SciMark showed good improvements.
3. In a lot of cases, the IB specific optimizations gave the best performance. Adding the Haswell specifc flags regressed perf.

 

[cowboy44mag]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

Lower than the lowest possible PC settings for gaming PCs of 2013, what about gaming PCs of 2005? The Xbox 360 is INTEL, just in case you don't know, and I'm saying that when it debuted in 2005 it would have taken a top of the line computer of that generation to best it at pure gaming. Not running all the background processes a PC has to but pure gaming it would have taken a $1500+ rig to match the Xbox 360 in 2005. Your comparing computer systems 8 years newer. That is why I said the computers would eventually become more powerful than the PS4, through upgrading and new tech -maybe by mid 2014, but at launch simply for playing games the PS4 is going to be hard to beat.

I would like you to show me a $700-$1000 computer from 2005 losing to the Xbox 360 in 2005-2008 games.

In 2005 the Xbox 360 and PS3 were considered to be cutting edge technology and were beating or equal to very expensive gaming PCs. They weren't beating them running all the windows programs the PCs had to, but they were beating them in graphics and gameplay. Gaming PCs starting pulling ahead again within months, by mid to late 2006 top end gaming PCs were again ahead, but at a much higher cost. I ask you again name me one PC from 2005 (not 2006-2013, after all the 360 and PS3 are still running original specs from 2005) that can play Skyrim or any of the new titles at the same resolution and fps as the Xbox 360 or PS3. Now how much did that computer cost in 2005 compared to the Xbox 360? Its going to be the same thing again. The PS4 will be very hard to beat at playing games till PCs start to get new expensive upgrades that make them better than the PS4. By mid to late next year PCs will again be vastly superior, but the components to make them vastly superior won't come cheap.

By the way I do agree that gaming PCs are always superior to console systems, and I primarily game on PC. The reason why Gaming PCs are vastly superior is because we do constant upgrades along the way while the consoles are stuck with the same tech they had back in..... However when first released the consoles are very, very impressive even when compared to top of the line gaming rigs.

 

[cowboy44mag]

http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1306150-PTS-INTELHAS05

Benchmarks of various FOSS softwares, compiled with Haswell specific flags, compared to Core2 , SB ,and IB specific optimizations.

Points of note :

1. majority of the benchmarks show no benefit, or a small regression. Yes, a small regression.
2. Only C-Ray and SciMark showed good improvements.
3. In a lot of cases, the IB specific optimizations gave the best performance. Adding the Haswell specifc flags regressed perf.

Haswell may use less power, but I don't understand anyone buying Haswell over Ivy Bridge. The short story is forget Haswell, all Steamroller has to do is come close to or beat Ivy Bridge and its better than Haswell by default. Of course even if it does Intel fans will rally around the "low power banner" and exclaim that performance isn't as important as power usage. Basically no matter what Intel will exclaim Haswell an overwhelming success.

 

[amdfangirl]

Woooo! Low power!

Performance isn't everything!

*buys AMD Kabini*

xD

 

[montosaurous]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

Lower than the lowest possible PC settings for gaming PCs of 2013, what about gaming PCs of 2005? The Xbox 360 is INTEL, just in case you don't know, and I'm saying that when it debuted in 2005 it would have taken a top of the line computer of that generation to best it at pure gaming. Not running all the background processes a PC has to but pure gaming it would have taken a $1500+ rig to match the Xbox 360 in 2005. Your comparing computer systems 8 years newer. That is why I said the computers would eventually become more powerful than the PS4, through upgrading and new tech -maybe by mid 2014, but at launch simply for playing games the PS4 is going to be hard to beat.

I would like you to show me a $700-$1000 computer from 2005 losing to the Xbox 360 in 2005-2008 games.

In 2005 the Xbox 360 and PS3 were considered to be cutting edge technology and were beating or equal to very expensive gaming PCs. They weren't beating them running all the windows programs the PCs had to, but they were beating them in graphics and gameplay. Gaming PCs starting pulling ahead again within months, by mid to late 2006 top end gaming PCs were again ahead, but at a much higher cost. I ask you again name me one PC from 2005 (not 2006-2013, after all the 360 and PS3 are still running original specs from 2005) that can play Skyrim or any of the new titles at the same resolution and fps as the Xbox 360 or PS3. Now how much did that computer cost in 2005 compared to the Xbox 360? Its going to be the same thing again. The PS4 will be very hard to beat at playing games till PCs start to get new expensive upgrades that make them better than the PS4. By mid to late next year PCs will again be vastly superior, but the components to make them vastly superior won't come cheap.

By the way I do agree that gaming PCs are always superior to console systems, and I primarily game on PC. The reason why Gaming PCs are vastly superior is because we do constant upgrades along the way while the consoles are stuck with the same tech they had back in..... However when first released the consoles are very, very impressive even when compared to top of the line gaming rigs.

Skyrim on the Xbox 360 is played on below low PC settings, 30 FPS and 720p. With a few tweaks a 1k PC from 2005 might be able to run it about the same. And the 7th gen was even better for it's time than the 8th gen is now. I don't like Nvidia fanboys and Intel fanboys either, but you guys are no better than they are with this shit. We have yet to see any graphics comparisons between the two, and specs wise it matches a mid range PC. Until we see a side to side comparison of graphics you will have no way to back your claims.

 

[montosaurous]

Few months old but still valid: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/PS4-PC-Unreal-Engine-4-Demon-Knight-Comparison-54146.html

 

[cowboy44mag]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

Lower than the lowest possible PC settings for gaming PCs of 2013, what about gaming PCs of 2005? The Xbox 360 is INTEL, just in case you don't know, and I'm saying that when it debuted in 2005 it would have taken a top of the line computer of that generation to best it at pure gaming. Not running all the background processes a PC has to but pure gaming it would have taken a $1500+ rig to match the Xbox 360 in 2005. Your comparing computer systems 8 years newer. That is why I said the computers would eventually become more powerful than the PS4, through upgrading and new tech -maybe by mid 2014, but at launch simply for playing games the PS4 is going to be hard to beat.

I would like you to show me a $700-$1000 computer from 2005 losing to the Xbox 360 in 2005-2008 games.

In 2005 the Xbox 360 and PS3 were considered to be cutting edge technology and were beating or equal to very expensive gaming PCs. They weren't beating them running all the windows programs the PCs had to, but they were beating them in graphics and gameplay. Gaming PCs starting pulling ahead again within months, by mid to late 2006 top end gaming PCs were again ahead, but at a much higher cost. I ask you again name me one PC from 2005 (not 2006-2013, after all the 360 and PS3 are still running original specs from 2005) that can play Skyrim or any of the new titles at the same resolution and fps as the Xbox 360 or PS3. Now how much did that computer cost in 2005 compared to the Xbox 360? Its going to be the same thing again. The PS4 will be very hard to beat at playing games till PCs start to get new expensive upgrades that make them better than the PS4. By mid to late next year PCs will again be vastly superior, but the components to make them vastly superior won't come cheap.

By the way I do agree that gaming PCs are always superior to console systems, and I primarily game on PC. The reason why Gaming PCs are vastly superior is because we do constant upgrades along the way while the consoles are stuck with the same tech they had back in..... However when first released the consoles are very, very impressive even when compared to top of the line gaming rigs.

Skyrim on the Xbox 360 is played on below low PC settings, 30 FPS and 720p. With a few tweaks a 1k PC from 2005 might be able to run it about the same. And the 7th gen was even better for it's time than the 8th gen is now. I don't like Nvidia fanboys and Intel fanboys either, but you guys are no better than they are with this shit. We have yet to see any graphics comparisons between the two, and specs wise it matches a mid range PC. Until we see a side to side comparison of graphics you will have no way to back your claims.

Per my point in all the console vs gaming PC, how much would a total build using that processor (that "might" be able to run it but not definitely) cost in 2005? The base Xbox 360 debuted for $299.99 in 2005 and can most definitely run Skyrim. Like I said it took a top of the line build to compare gaming wise to a console costing only $299.99. And lets face it that gaming PC from 2005 isn't gaming anymore while the 360 still is. When the consoles first release they are awesome gaming platforms plain and simple and it takes a top of the line system to be called truly better. But boasting "my $2000+ build can beat a $399 console" isn't much to brag about if its even true.

Seriously though, this is getting way off topic and the only way it can relate to Steamroller is that the multi-threaded games produced for the new PS4 will, in my opinion run great with Kaveri APUs and Steamroller FX systems. Only time will tell if they will run better on Kaveri and Steamroller FX than iCore, but to just be an Intel tool and say no AMD product can ever beat Intel ever ever ever ever its impossible is just beyond stupid. If history has shown us anything its things are only impossible till it happens.

 

[montosaurous]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

Lower than the lowest possible PC settings for gaming PCs of 2013, what about gaming PCs of 2005? The Xbox 360 is INTEL, just in case you don't know, and I'm saying that when it debuted in 2005 it would have taken a top of the line computer of that generation to best it at pure gaming. Not running all the background processes a PC has to but pure gaming it would have taken a $1500+ rig to match the Xbox 360 in 2005. Your comparing computer systems 8 years newer. That is why I said the computers would eventually become more powerful than the PS4, through upgrading and new tech -maybe by mid 2014, but at launch simply for playing games the PS4 is going to be hard to beat.

I would like you to show me a $700-$1000 computer from 2005 losing to the Xbox 360 in 2005-2008 games.

In 2005 the Xbox 360 and PS3 were considered to be cutting edge technology and were beating or equal to very expensive gaming PCs. They weren't beating them running all the windows programs the PCs had to, but they were beating them in graphics and gameplay. Gaming PCs starting pulling ahead again within months, by mid to late 2006 top end gaming PCs were again ahead, but at a much higher cost. I ask you again name me one PC from 2005 (not 2006-2013, after all the 360 and PS3 are still running original specs from 2005) that can play Skyrim or any of the new titles at the same resolution and fps as the Xbox 360 or PS3. Now how much did that computer cost in 2005 compared to the Xbox 360? Its going to be the same thing again. The PS4 will be very hard to beat at playing games till PCs start to get new expensive upgrades that make them better than the PS4. By mid to late next year PCs will again be vastly superior, but the components to make them vastly superior won't come cheap.

By the way I do agree that gaming PCs are always superior to console systems, and I primarily game on PC. The reason why Gaming PCs are vastly superior is because we do constant upgrades along the way while the consoles are stuck with the same tech they had back in..... However when first released the consoles are very, very impressive even when compared to top of the line gaming rigs.

Skyrim on the Xbox 360 is played on below low PC settings, 30 FPS and 720p. With a few tweaks a 1k PC from 2005 might be able to run it about the same. And the 7th gen was even better for it's time than the 8th gen is now. I don't like Nvidia fanboys and Intel fanboys either, but you guys are no better than they are with this shit. We have yet to see any graphics comparisons between the two, and specs wise it matches a mid range PC. Until we see a side to side comparison of graphics you will have no way to back your claims.

Per my point in all the console vs gaming PC, how much would a total build using that processor (that "might" be able to run it but not definitely) cost in 2005? The base Xbox 360 debuted for $299.99 in 2005 and can most definitely run Skyrim. Like I said it took a top of the line build to compare gaming wise to a console costing only $299.99. And lets face it that gaming PC from 2005 isn't gaming anymore while the 360 still is. When the consoles first release they are awesome gaming platforms plain and simple and it takes a top of the line system to be called truly better. But boasting "my $2000+ build can beat a $399 console" isn't much to brag about if its even true.

Seriously though, this is getting way off topic and the only way it can relate to Steamroller is that the multi-threaded games produced for the new PS4 will, in my opinion run great with Kaveri APUs and Steamroller FX systems. Only time will tell if they will run better on Kaveri and Steamroller FX than iCore, but to just be an Intel tool and say no AMD product can ever beat Intel ever ever ever ever its impossible is just beyond stupid. If history has shown us anything its things are only impossible till it happens.

Trying to change the subject eh? And you do realize all Intel has to do to beat AMD at gaming is add more cores and add more cache... hell even raise clock rates. If AMD even gets close Intel will rev things up again.

 

[esrever]

them 8 core 16 thread haswell e are coming, yours for only $1500.

 

[cowboy44mag]

360 games are lower than the lowest possible PC settings. And not as high resolution or as many frames. And just because on paper something looks good doesn't mean it will all end up well. Face it, you're only defending the consoles because AMD is in them. If it were Intel and Nvidia you'd be bashing them.

Lower than the lowest possible PC settings for gaming PCs of 2013, what about gaming PCs of 2005? The Xbox 360 is INTEL, just in case you don't know, and I'm saying that when it debuted in 2005 it would have taken a top of the line computer of that generation to best it at pure gaming. Not running all the background processes a PC has to but pure gaming it would have taken a $1500+ rig to match the Xbox 360 in 2005. Your comparing computer systems 8 years newer. That is why I said the computers would eventually become more powerful than the PS4, through upgrading and new tech -maybe by mid 2014, but at launch simply for playing games the PS4 is going to be hard to beat.

I would like you to show me a $700-$1000 computer from 2005 losing to the Xbox 360 in 2005-2008 games.

In 2005 the Xbox 360 and PS3 were considered to be cutting edge technology and were beating or equal to very expensive gaming PCs. They weren't beating them running all the windows programs the PCs had to, but they were beating them in graphics and gameplay. Gaming PCs starting pulling ahead again within months, by mid to late 2006 top end gaming PCs were again ahead, but at a much higher cost. I ask you again name me one PC from 2005 (not 2006-2013, after all the 360 and PS3 are still running original specs from 2005) that can play Skyrim or any of the new titles at the same resolution and fps as the Xbox 360 or PS3. Now how much did that computer cost in 2005 compared to the Xbox 360? Its going to be the same thing again. The PS4 will be very hard to beat at playing games till PCs start to get new expensive upgrades that make them better than the PS4. By mid to late next year PCs will again be vastly superior, but the components to make them vastly superior won't come cheap.

By the way I do agree that gaming PCs are always superior to console systems, and I primarily game on PC. The reason why Gaming PCs are vastly superior is because we do constant upgrades along the way while the consoles are stuck with the same tech they had back in..... However when first released the consoles are very, very impressive even when compared to top of the line gaming rigs.

Skyrim on the Xbox 360 is played on below low PC settings, 30 FPS and 720p. With a few tweaks a 1k PC from 2005 might be able to run it about the same. And the 7th gen was even better for it's time than the 8th gen is now. I don't like Nvidia fanboys and Intel fanboys either, but you guys are no better than they are with this shit. We have yet to see any graphics comparisons between the two, and specs wise it matches a mid range PC. Until we see a side to side comparison of graphics you will have no way to back your claims.

Per my point in all the console vs gaming PC, how much would a total build using that processor (that "might" be able to run it but not definitely) cost in 2005? The base Xbox 360 debuted for $299.99 in 2005 and can most definitely run Skyrim. Like I said it took a top of the line build to compare gaming wise to a console costing only $299.99. And lets face it that gaming PC from 2005 isn't gaming anymore while the 360 still is. When the consoles first release they are awesome gaming platforms plain and simple and it takes a top of the line system to be called truly better. But boasting "my $2000+ build can beat a $399 console" isn't much to brag about if its even true.

Seriously though, this is getting way off topic and the only way it can relate to Steamroller is that the multi-threaded games produced for the new PS4 will, in my opinion run great with Kaveri APUs and Steamroller FX systems. Only time will tell if they will run better on Kaveri and Steamroller FX than iCore, but to just be an Intel tool and say no AMD product can ever beat Intel ever ever ever ever its impossible is just beyond stupid. If history has shown us anything its things are only impossible till it happens.

Trying to change the subject eh? And you do realize all Intel has to do to beat AMD at gaming is add more cores and add more cache... hell even raise clock rates. If AMD even gets close Intel will rev things up again.

If your so entirely sold on Intel then buy yourself on of those new 8 core Haswell for only $1500 and get off this thread. This is supposed to be about AMD Steamroller, you are obviously trying to troll and get people fired up. Go by all means buy your superior end all Haswell chip and be happy, I'm sure there are lots of Intel lovers threads that you would feel very happy on and would totally agree with you without any thought process at all. Sorry but this thread is for AMD Steamroller, not explaining how Intel will always and forever be superior and the i7 is the best invention the world has ever seen. You are simply trolling.

 

[montosaurous]

Eh I prefer to use AMD for their price/performance ratio. Haswell was a bit of a failure for a 'tick', I won't disagree with you there. And this thread isn't about consoles either. Lets face it: the days of the Athlon are over. Intel has a much larger R&D department and a superior architecture at the moment, it will take awhile for AMD to catch up. FX kinda does remind me of the Phenoms, and the i5s of Core 2 Duos. The C2D were better for gaming at first, but who's better for gaming now? That's right, the Phenoms. Then the Phenom IIs were released and brought AMD pretty close to Intel in gaming. Sandy Bridge came out 2 years later and since then it's been a long, uphill battle for AMD. My guess is Steamroller and Excavator will be like the Phenom IIs where the current chips are like the Phenoms. And then Skylake will come out and be like Sandy Bridge. Same thing over and over again. History may not always repeat itself, but it's the only guide we got.

 

[cowboy44mag]

Lets just end this once and for all. Intel has the best processors available right now period, that is a fact, and no one is debating that fact. With Haswell actually faring worse than Ivy Bridge in all tests except for power management Steamroller has a real chance of catching up as it only has to do as well as Intel's last generation (Ivy Bridge). Can Intel simply add more cores and more and more and more.... YES of course they can, however that chip is going to have a price tag that very few gamers are going to be able to afford. If rumor is true that 8 core 16 thread beast that can still beat anything AMD can deliver is going to be $1500. Price to performance if Steamroller can perform as well as or better than 4 core 8 thread i7 Ivy Bridge systems its still a big win for AMD.

You are however right, even if AMD scores that big win (which I admit is a big if and far from certain) Intel will still have the monster 8 core 16 thread cpu if you want to shell out the money for it. But you will have the best of the best and can post your awe inspiring benchmarks all over the place in a vast display of overcompensation. I hardly would count that as a big win for Intel though (as that processor will be easily double maybe triple the cost of Steamroller FX), and it isn't the "final nail in the coffin" so many Intel fans are hoping for.

 

[montosaurous]

They have 2k Sandy Bridge 8 core Xeons with 20MB of L3 Cache. And personally I would've liked to see K10 on 32nm. They could've just as easily had 8 core K10 CPUs that would perform better than these construction machines.