AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[GOM3RPLY3R]

STOP TROLLING WITH BOGUS INFORMATION.

You are wrong with the way they measure their voltages/watts. I'm sure that you have software that shows the watts, like Speccy or GPU/CPU-z. Please understand that you are posting wrong information. Please read up on your computer news.

Ok ok... then intel doesn't have better power, not at chipset, not at fab process not at DVFS..

Is that it ?... any other part of my previous post you seem clearly to agree with me.

ummm... what else could it be *wrong information* by your POV ? ... power is not "load" dependent ? ... a client/desktop system doesn't pass most of time idling ?

IF any of that i can't help you sorry... perhaps a school can.

Maybe you should go back to school buddy.

Yes Intel does run somewhat more power when on load, but yes of course, power is load dependent. You don't expect a 120 watt bulb to light up efficiently in a 20 watt socket? I think not. I agree that a rig will idle a lot, however, when idling, Intel does bring in less power draw than AMD, which in the long run, you are saving money if you leave your computer on, which in turn is used when you use the pc, so it evens out.

 

[Cazalan]

I thought that AMD was riding out the remaining life in AM3+ up to Excavator CPUs. Look at what they're doing with the Centurion chips. AMD recognizes that there is still a market for bragging rights CPUs just as Intel with their extreme series. 990FX is a tired, old chipset and I wouldn't be surprised to see one last refresh for AM3+ before they finally take it out to the barn and shoot it.

I was looking forward to a Steamroller FX as well (6C actually not 8), but if you read between the lines of the latest roadmaps that is unlikely to happen. AMD has switched gears almost entirely to APU/SoC.

The server roadmap shows no new high end cores all through 2014. If there were a Steamroller FX there would at least be a 1P Server chip with 8 Steamroller cores. This is not listed at all.

Instead there is a Steamroller APU (4 core) for the 1P server market. This is basically the same as Kaveri but with ECC support (key for servers). And we glean that Kaveri will have 8 CU (512 sp).

Note that the only reason the Bulldozer/Piledriver FX exists in the first place is because it's the same die used for Operton 16 core CPUs. Bulldozer was architected from the ground up to be a server chip.

 

[hcl123]

Also hardware differences are a major factor

Sure they can be big... but software differences can be more than an order of magnitude bigger than the hardware

An old example as old as my granpa, used to interest enterprises and corporations
http://www.edn.com/design/systems-design/4314689/Autovectorization-for-GCC-compiler

EEMBC publishes two types of scores: out of the box and “full fury,” or optimized...
... The full-fury scores show an average improvement of more than 1500% over out-of-the-box scores for the same processor running at the same speed

Can you appreciate the differences ?? ...1500% is 15x more, i can't remember when a CPU or GPU presented not even 20% of that from one generation to the next, usually not even in 2 or 3 generations apart... understand ?

 

[hcl123]

STOP TROLLING WITH BOGUS INFORMATION.

You are wrong with the way they measure their voltages/watts. I'm sure that you have software that shows the watts, like Speccy or GPU/CPU-z. Please understand that you are posting wrong information. Please read up on your computer news.

Ok ok... then intel doesn't have better power, not at chipset, not at fab process not at DVFS..

Is that it ?... any other part of my previous post you seem clearly to agree with me.

ummm... what else could it be *wrong information* by your POV ? ... power is not "load" dependent ? ... a client/desktop system doesn't pass most of time idling ?

IF any of that i can't help you sorry... perhaps a school can.

Maybe you should go back to school buddy.

Yes Intel does run somewhat more power when on load, but yes of course, power is load dependent. You don't expect a 120 watt bulb to light up efficiently in a 20 watt socket? I think not. I agree that a rig will idle a lot, however, when idling, Intel does bring in less power draw than AMD, which in the long run, you are saving money if you leave your computer on, which in turn is used when you use the pc, so it evens out.

So what is your problem ? ... in gross mode we agree

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Also hardware differences are a major factor

Sure they can be big... but software differences can be more than an order of magnitude bigger than the hardware

An old example as old as my granpa, used to interest enterprises and corporations
http://www.edn.com/design/systems-design/4314689/Autovectorization-for-GCC-compiler

EEMBC publishes two types of scores: out of the box and “full fury,” or optimized...
... The full-fury scores show an average improvement of more than 1500% over out-of-the-box scores for the same processor running at the same speed

Can you appreciate the differences ?? ...1500% is 15x more, i can't remember when a CPU or GPU presented not even 20% of that from one generation to the next, usually not even in 2 or 3 generations apart... understand ?

Okay then with the point that you are saying that this is software, why not just put it on the Intel processors? -_-

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

STOP TROLLING WITH BOGUS INFORMATION.

You are wrong with the way they measure their voltages/watts. I'm sure that you have software that shows the watts, like Speccy or GPU/CPU-z. Please understand that you are posting wrong information. Please read up on your computer news.

Ok ok... then intel doesn't have better power, not at chipset, not at fab process not at DVFS..

Is that it ?... any other part of my previous post you seem clearly to agree with me.

ummm... what else could it be *wrong information* by your POV ? ... power is not "load" dependent ? ... a client/desktop system doesn't pass most of time idling ?

IF any of that i can't help you sorry... perhaps a school can.

Maybe you should go back to school buddy.

Yes Intel does run somewhat more power when on load, but yes of course, power is load dependent. You don't expect a 120 watt bulb to light up efficiently in a 20 watt socket? I think not. I agree that a rig will idle a lot, however, when idling, Intel does bring in less power draw than AMD, which in the long run, you are saving money if you leave your computer on, which in turn is used when you use the pc, so it evens out.

So what is your problem ? ... in gross mode we agree

You said that NONE of the software out there shows true voltages. If that is true, then how come ALL of them show ~ Exact results? Even so, if your statement is true, then why dont I just use the motherboard and processor with the PSU? The Motherboard never takes more than 10 watts, so if the results is 80 watts, then we can say 70-80 watts were used.

 

[hcl123]

Also hardware differences are a major factor

Sure they can be big... but software differences can be more than an order of magnitude bigger than the hardware

An old example as old as my granpa, used to interest enterprises and corporations
http://www.edn.com/design/systems-design/4314689/Autovectorization-for-GCC-compiler

EEMBC publishes two types of scores: out of the box and “full fury,” or optimized...
... The full-fury scores show an average improvement of more than 1500% over out-of-the-box scores for the same processor running at the same speed

Can you appreciate the differences ?? ...1500% is 15x more, i can't remember when a CPU or GPU presented not even 20% of that from one generation to the next, usually not even in 2 or 3 generations apart... understand ?

Okay then with the point that you are saying that this is software, why not just put it on the Intel processors? -_-

Don't understand, put what on intel processors ?

Understand, by standardization effort, all software runs either on AMD or intel processors, even if its.. how we could say.. "emulated" at an instruction level by the use of microcode.

Even from the same vendor, supporting nativelly the same exact ISA (instruction set arch) and all its extensions, not all "instructions" are hard coded the same way. From different vendors the differences can even be bigger, to the point that some design of some vendor has hard coded instructions that on others can only be run by microcode (emulated)

This mostly certain is independent of macro-architecture, usually called everything not "cores", but sometimes also of micro-architecture, that is, the cores can be pretty identical yet have some hard coded instructions differently.

All this maze of complexity, micro and macro, has an enormous influence on software, better said its the software job to take advantage of the hardware, not the other way around, and algorithms, routines, functions, procedures,etc... can have exactly the same effect/result but using combinations of different instructions of an immense number of possible combinations( triggered by compiler flags, or different versions of the same compiler, different compilers and or directly assenbled in code)... that is why we optimize software... optimizations that can be plenty in number, on different levels of objectives, **proving exactly the same results**. And since the hardcoding can have plenty of differences, is quite possible that some *versions of that software* runs better at some particular "processor" while other version run better at other processor (same vendor or not), yet the result is exactly the same.
(and when i say "results" here, its not numbers on a chart, its the result of the software, the objective, not how fast it can get that result... is like calculating "PI" with superPI, there are plenty of ways to get the same pi results, ones faster or slower than others)

So if i published the lulebentmark uber duper benchpack, is possible that build 1024 runs better at CPU X of vendor A, yet build 1035 runs better CPU Z of vendor I, yet pretending to measure exactly the same thing and carrying exactly the same name.

So in last yes, ITS A WHOLE LOT more complicated than many analyses and opinions express, an yes *driver* software counts A LOT.

 

[griptwister]

lol, this thread has so many deluded amd fanboys in it. Imagine if steamroller was close to haswell these amd fanboys would be saying now we closed the gap but intels 2x better performance per watt on total power consumption to compete a task needs revolutionary work by amd and no I don't work for intel.

AMD cpus are much better performance per watt in laptop cpus compared to the desktop cpus but still not even close to where intel are though. I predict 2017 will be the year when amd catch up intel ivy bridge performance per watt as amd don't seem to care about efficiency in desktop cpus.

edit look at the bottom part sandy bridge cpu then ivy bridge improves efficiency then haswell oc improves power consumption dramatically and the 5w difference at stock is more then made up for by the performance gain:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

Delusional? Lol, you're the one talking about power savings for desktop users. Don't get me wrong, What Intel is doing with Quad Cores and power consumption is incredible. But it doesn't relate to me because I'm a desktop user. Aka, Power user. Also, watch this yo! (This'll piss most of you un-biased guys off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8p9rSwc_uQ

Lol, your funny. This can't completely prove anything. Give me another video doing the same but the the AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU, and Intel CPU and AMD GPU. The reason that these are "bias" are because that AMD has technology that can use the CPU and GPU more in conjunction with each other. Another this is, how do we know that the 660 Ti isn't under clocked and that the 7950 isn't over clocked? Food for thought.

lol, this thread has so many deluded amd fanboys in it. Imagine if steamroller was close to haswell these amd fanboys would be saying now we closed the gap but intels 2x better performance per watt on total power consumption to compete a task needs revolutionary work by amd and no I don't work for intel.

AMD cpus are much better performance per watt in laptop cpus compared to the desktop cpus but still not even close to where intel are though. I predict 2017 will be the year when amd catch up intel ivy bridge performance per watt as amd don't seem to care about efficiency in desktop cpus.

edit look at the bottom part sandy bridge cpu then ivy bridge improves efficiency then haswell oc improves power consumption dramatically and the 5w difference at stock is more then made up for by the performance gain:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

Delusional? Lol, you're the one talking about power savings for desktop users. Don't get me wrong, What Intel is doing with Quad Cores and power consumption is incredible. But it doesn't relate to me because I'm a desktop user. Aka, Power user. Also, watch this yo! (This'll piss most of you un-biased guys off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8p9rSwc_uQ

That video shows the i5 3570k load the gtx660ti oc to a solid 99% gpu load but the fx8320 can keep it at like 60-70% varying performance all the time so all that video showed me is how bad amd cpus are for gaming.

Or did it show you that 192-bit bus GPU is easier to put under full load than a 384-bit bus GPU? Also, Underclocked? Lol, one system has a Slightly more powerful GPU and a FX8320 and the other system has a slightly weaker and just as expensive GPU Paired with an i5. It shows you which system is the better value.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Also hardware differences are a major factor

Sure they can be big... but software differences can be more than an order of magnitude bigger than the hardware

An old example as old as my granpa, used to interest enterprises and corporations
http://www.edn.com/design/systems-design/4314689/Autovectorization-for-GCC-compiler

EEMBC publishes two types of scores: out of the box and “full fury,” or optimized...
... The full-fury scores show an average improvement of more than 1500% over out-of-the-box scores for the same processor running at the same speed

Can you appreciate the differences ?? ...1500% is 15x more, i can't remember when a CPU or GPU presented not even 20% of that from one generation to the next, usually not even in 2 or 3 generations apart... understand ?

Okay then with the point that you are saying that this is software, why not just put it on the Intel processors? -_-

Don't understand, put what on intel processors ?

Understand, by standardization effort, all software runs either on AMD or intel processors, even if its.. how we could say.. "emulated" at an instruction level by the use of microcode.

Even from the same vendor, supporting nativelly the same exact ISA (instruction set arch) and all its extensions, not all "instructions" are hard coded the same way. From different vendors the differences can even be bigger, to the point that some design of some vendor has hard coded instructions that on others can only be run by microcode (emulated)

This mostly certain is independent of macro-architecture, usually called everything not "cores", but sometimes also of micro-architecture, that is, the cores can be pretty identical yet have some hard coded instructions differently.

All this maze of complexity, micro and macro, has an enormous influence on software, better said its the software job to take advantage of the hardware, not the other way around, and algorithms, routines, functions, procedures,etc... can have exactly the same effect/result but using combinations of different instructions of an immense number of possible combinations( triggered by compiler flags, or different versions of the same compiler, different compilers and or directly assenbled in code)... that is why we optimize software... optimizations that can be plenty in number, on different levels of objectives, **proving exactly the same results**. And since the hardcoding can have plenty of differences, is quite possible that some *versions of that software* runs better at some particular "processor" while other version run better at other processor (same vendor or not), yet the result is exactly the same.
(and when i say "results" here, its not numbers on a chart, its the result of the software, the objective, not how fast it can get that result... is like calculating "PI" with superPI, there are plenty of ways to get the same pi results, ones faster or slower than others)

So if i published the lulebentmark uber duper benchpack, is possible that build 1024 runs better at CPU X of vendor A, yet build 1035 runs better CPU Z of vendor I, yet pretending to measure exactly the same thing and carrying exactly the same name.

So in last yes, ITS A WHOLE LOT more complicated than many analyses and opinions express, an yes *driver* software counts A LOT.

Okay with software being the meat on the sandwich, what are you trying to accomplish? Unless we test every single software with every single cpu and gpu, which would take a long time, the differences in that are so minute that they are un-measurable, so your point, to a valid reality, is useless.

 

[8350rocks]

Sapphire shows a proof of concept MB for trinity to use in digital signage...(look out VIA)

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/18/sapphire-shows-multidisplay-board-computex/

New AMD server roadmap:

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/17/amd-announces-seattle-berlin-and-warsaw-for-servers/

Commentary about the digital signage software...(and 18 display setup):

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/13/sapphire-shows-18-screen-demo-in-computex/

Radeon HD 8670D (Richland top end iGPU) reviewed:

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/05/amds-radeon-hd-8670d-a-review/

EDIT: This is older, but worth reading...Intel intends to shut out GPUs in it's hardware using Intel only graphics in the near future:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

From the last link:

"In the end, Intel is simply shutting the door on discrete GPUs by moving the low bar higher with their integrated performance, the high bar lower with PCIe limits, and offering their own solution in the middle. Broadwell will start the squeeze on mobile CPUs, and you can be sure that mainstream desktops won’t be far behind. Essentially the window on what a discrete GPU can do when connected to an Intel CPU will narrow with each successive generation."

That part is really... Scary.

Can AMD leverage performance so that Intel actually gives a damn about enthusiasts? Ugh...

Cheers!

Well, I think what will ultimately happen, is that enthusiasts will realize that intel GPU sucks...and that discrete GPUs run like garbage on the Intel systems...so that if they want to do anything work station grade or hardcore gaming, they'll have to go to AMD.

Kudos to Intel for giving market share to AMD with a boneheaded strategy...LOL.

It is pretty scary though...honestly...that's the biggest one finger salute to consumers I have ever seen from a company who wants the same consumers to buy their product the most.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

lol, this thread has so many deluded amd fanboys in it. Imagine if steamroller was close to haswell these amd fanboys would be saying now we closed the gap but intels 2x better performance per watt on total power consumption to compete a task needs revolutionary work by amd and no I don't work for intel.

AMD cpus are much better performance per watt in laptop cpus compared to the desktop cpus but still not even close to where intel are though. I predict 2017 will be the year when amd catch up intel ivy bridge performance per watt as amd don't seem to care about efficiency in desktop cpus.

edit look at the bottom part sandy bridge cpu then ivy bridge improves efficiency then haswell oc improves power consumption dramatically and the 5w difference at stock is more then made up for by the performance gain:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

Delusional? Lol, you're the one talking about power savings for desktop users. Don't get me wrong, What Intel is doing with Quad Cores and power consumption is incredible. But it doesn't relate to me because I'm a desktop user. Aka, Power user. Also, watch this yo! (This'll piss most of you un-biased guys off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8p9rSwc_uQ

Lol, your funny. This can't completely prove anything. Give me another video doing the same but the the AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU, and Intel CPU and AMD GPU. The reason that these are "bias" are because that AMD has technology that can use the CPU and GPU more in conjunction with each other. Another this is, how do we know that the 660 Ti isn't under clocked and that the 7950 isn't over clocked? Food for thought.

lol, this thread has so many deluded amd fanboys in it. Imagine if steamroller was close to haswell these amd fanboys would be saying now we closed the gap but intels 2x better performance per watt on total power consumption to compete a task needs revolutionary work by amd and no I don't work for intel.

AMD cpus are much better performance per watt in laptop cpus compared to the desktop cpus but still not even close to where intel are though. I predict 2017 will be the year when amd catch up intel ivy bridge performance per watt as amd don't seem to care about efficiency in desktop cpus.

edit look at the bottom part sandy bridge cpu then ivy bridge improves efficiency then haswell oc improves power consumption dramatically and the 5w difference at stock is more then made up for by the performance gain:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

Delusional? Lol, you're the one talking about power savings for desktop users. Don't get me wrong, What Intel is doing with Quad Cores and power consumption is incredible. But it doesn't relate to me because I'm a desktop user. Aka, Power user. Also, watch this yo! (This'll piss most of you un-biased guys off)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8p9rSwc_uQ

That video shows the i5 3570k load the gtx660ti oc to a solid 99% gpu load but the fx8320 can keep it at like 60-70% varying performance all the time so all that video showed me is how bad amd cpus are for gaming.

Or did it show you that 192-bit bus GPU is easier to put under full load than a 384-bit bus GPU? Also, Underclocked? Lol, one system has a Slightly more powerful GPU and a FX8320 and the other system has a slightly weaker and just as expensive GPU Paired with an i5. It shows you which system is the better value.

Please read: "Another this is, how do we know that the 660 Ti isn't under clocked and that the 7950 isn't over clocked"

You stated stock facts, and I agree that the 660 ti is slightly worse.However, thus being said, the difference in frame rates is absolutely absurd. ~50% less performance and hardware that is ~the same. The only conclusion is that they messed with clock, which they did not mention in the video.

 

[hcl123]

STOP TROLLING WITH BOGUS INFORMATION.

You are wrong with the way they measure their voltages/watts. I'm sure that you have software that shows the watts, like Speccy or GPU/CPU-z. Please understand that you are posting wrong information. Please read up on your computer news.

Ok ok... then intel doesn't have better power, not at chipset, not at fab process not at DVFS..

Is that it ?... any other part of my previous post you seem clearly to agree with me.

ummm... what else could it be *wrong information* by your POV ? ... power is not "load" dependent ? ... a client/desktop system doesn't pass most of time idling ?

IF any of that i can't help you sorry... perhaps a school can.

Maybe you should go back to school buddy.

Yes Intel does run somewhat more power when on load, but yes of course, power is load dependent. You don't expect a 120 watt bulb to light up efficiently in a 20 watt socket? I think not. I agree that a rig will idle a lot, however, when idling, Intel does bring in less power draw than AMD, which in the long run, you are saving money if you leave your computer on, which in turn is used when you use the pc, so it evens out.

So what is your problem ? ... in gross mode we agree

You said that NONE of the software out there shows true voltages. If that is true, then how come ALL of them show ~ Exact results? Even so, if your statement is true, then why dont I just use the motherboard and processor with the PSU? The Motherboard never takes more than 10 watts, so if the results is 80 watts, then we can say 70-80 watts were used.

Voltage is not power, and yes software employs not a deterministic approach.. its a statistical approach... can be quite skewed sometimes.

And yes you can be sure the better your PSU is, the less power is usually wasted... and the wiring, the kind of copper ink alloy in those mobo traces also has influence, the VRMs etc etc etc... its also A LOT of things and complicated things to put exclusive blame on the CPU.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Sapphire shows a proof of concept MB for trinity to use in digital signage...(look out VIA)

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/18/sapphire-shows-multidisplay-board-computex/

New AMD server roadmap:

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/17/amd-announces-seattle-berlin-and-warsaw-for-servers/

Commentary about the digital signage software...(and 18 display setup):

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/13/sapphire-shows-18-screen-demo-in-computex/

Radeon HD 8670D (Richland top end iGPU) reviewed:

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/06/05/amds-radeon-hd-8670d-a-review/

EDIT: This is older, but worth reading...Intel intends to shut out GPUs in it's hardware using Intel only graphics in the near future:

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/18/how-intel-can-slam-the-door-on-gpus/

From the last link:

"In the end, Intel is simply shutting the door on discrete GPUs by moving the low bar higher with their integrated performance, the high bar lower with PCIe limits, and offering their own solution in the middle. Broadwell will start the squeeze on mobile CPUs, and you can be sure that mainstream desktops won’t be far behind. Essentially the window on what a discrete GPU can do when connected to an Intel CPU will narrow with each successive generation."

That part is really... Scary.

Can AMD leverage performance so that Intel actually gives a damn about enthusiasts? Ugh...

Cheers!

Well, I think what will ultimately happen, is that enthusiasts will realize that intel GPU sucks...and that discrete GPUs run like garbage on the Intel systems...so that if they want to do anything work station grade or hardcore gaming, they'll have to go to AMD.

Kudos to Intel for giving market share to AMD with a boneheaded strategy...LOL.

It is pretty scary though...honestly...that's the biggest one finger salute to consumers I have ever seen from a company who wants the same consumers to buy their product the most.

You're hilarious? Do you understand the gamer world? Who, even with an APU, in the right mind would use the integrated graphics. If your point were absolutely true, then GPUs would not exist.

 

[hcl123]

Okay with software being the meat on the sandwich, what are you trying to accomplish? Unless we test every single software with every single cpu and gpu, which would take a long time, the differences in that are so minute that they are un-measurable, so your point, to a valid reality, is useless.

"" So this should all be fun, knowing that ERROR MARGINS can even go quite above 10% sometimes, there are positive points for all tastes, its an approximation of potentialities, there is nothing absolute on those results

(understand relative (a clew) vs absolute ? ) ""
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/352312-28-steamroller-speculation-expert-conjecture/page-96#11015854

Why angry posts ? ... one of the first things that i learned in first year of University, is that there aren't measures that don't include an error margin, yet is not because of that we don't measure, only we must be aware of significance.

 

[griptwister]

You're hilarious? Do you understand the gamer world? Who, even with an APU, in the right mind would use the integrated graphics. If your point were absolutely true, then GPUs would not exist.

And the Intel Peasants rejoice. Good Jab. But AMD will still allow a discrete GPU.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Okay with software being the meat on the sandwich, what are you trying to accomplish? Unless we test every single software with every single cpu and gpu, which would take a long time, the differences in that are so minute that they are un-measurable, so your point, to a valid reality, is useless.

"" So this should all be fun, knowing that ERROR MARGINS can even go quite above 10% sometimes, there are positive points for all tastes, its an approximation of potentialities, there is nothing absolute on those results

(understand relative (a clew) vs absolute ? ) ""
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/352312-28-steamroller-speculation-expert-conjecture/page-96#11015854

Why angry posts ? ... one of the first things that i learned in first year of University, is that there aren't measures that don't include an error margin, yet is not because of that we don't measure, only we must be aware of significance.

And with that, you mean that what you're saying is not solid evidence?

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

You're hilarious? Do you understand the gamer world? Who, even with an APU, in the right mind would use the integrated graphics. If your point were absolutely true, then GPUs would not exist.

And the Intel Peasants rejoice. Good Jab. But AMD will still allow a discrete GPU.

Even so, would you get an APU expecting it to run crysis 3/far cry 3 on ultra settings with slight antialiasing? I think otherwise.

UPDATE: That doesn't go below 40 FPS*

 

[juanrga]

Well, I think what will ultimately happen, is that enthusiasts will realize that intel GPU sucks...and that discrete GPUs run like garbage on the Intel systems...so that if they want to do anything work station grade or hardcore gaming, they'll have to go to AMD.

Kudos to Intel for giving market share to AMD with a boneheaded strategy...LOL.

It is pretty scary though...honestly...that's the biggest one finger salute to consumers I have ever seen from a company who wants the same consumers to buy their product the most.

In fact Intel is introducing Haswell ULV without PCIe support eliminating the possibility to add a dGPU.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Well, I think what will ultimately happen, is that enthusiasts will realize that intel GPU sucks...and that discrete GPUs run like garbage on the Intel systems...so that if they want to do anything work station grade or hardcore gaming, they'll have to go to AMD.

Kudos to Intel for giving market share to AMD with a boneheaded strategy...LOL.

It is pretty scary though...honestly...that's the biggest one finger salute to consumers I have ever seen from a company who wants the same consumers to buy their product the most.

In fact Intel is introducing Haswell ULV without PCIe support eliminating the possibility to add a dGPU.

May I see the source you read that from?

 

[juanrga]

Even so, would you get an APU expecting it to run crysis 3/far cry 3 on ultra settings with slight antialiasing? I think otherwise.

UPDATE: That doesn't go below 40 FPS*

The APUs on the next consoles will play games of the graphic quality of crysis 3 and beyond. I think we will that on the PC by 2015.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Even so, would you get an APU expecting it to run crysis 3/far cry 3 on ultra settings with slight antialiasing? I think otherwise.

UPDATE: That doesn't go below 40 FPS*

The APUs on the next consoles will play games of the graphic quality of crysis 3 and beyond. I think we will that on the PC by 2015.

On the console version of the game* you forgot to add. The architecture will be similar, but will be much more optimized than you would think. We will have to wait and see what it provides. 'Facts' from the future prove to be no evidence.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

And with that, you mean that what you're saying is not solid evidence?

Solid evidence of what ?

What i said is that we know that every measure has an error associated(edit), but we measure everything in any case, and there are ways to determine (number theory) the significance of that measured numbers, that can have enormous error margins to incredibly diminute ones (very high precision), that is, there are ways to determine the significance of those numbers... from very high precision to very low... like some of your posts (sorry).

You forgot to add something there, "very high precision to very low failure rate".

Since you claim that there are, give me these equations.

 

[anxiousinfusion]

From the last link:

"In the end, Intel is simply shutting the door on discrete GPUs by moving the low bar higher with their integrated performance, the high bar lower with PCIe limits, and offering their own solution in the middle. Broadwell will start the squeeze on mobile CPUs, and you can be sure that mainstream desktops won’t be far behind. Essentially the window on what a discrete GPU can do when connected to an Intel CPU will narrow with each successive generation."

That part is really... Scary.

Can AMD leverage performance so that Intel actually gives a damn about enthusiasts? Ugh...

Cheers!

I was looking forward to a Steamroller FX as well (6C actually not 8), but if you read between the lines of the latest roadmaps that is unlikely to happen. AMD has switched gears almost entirely to APU/SoC.

The server roadmap shows no new high end cores all through 2014. If there were a Steamroller FX there would at least be a 1P Server chip with 8 Steamroller cores. This is not listed at all.

Instead there is a Steamroller APU (4 core) for the 1P server market. This is basically the same as Kaveri but with ECC support (key for servers). And we glean that Kaveri will have 8 CU (512 sp).

Note that the only reason the Bulldozer/Piledriver FX exists in the first place is because it's the same die used for Operton 16 core CPUs. Bulldozer was architected from the ground up to be a server chip.

And I can't even say that I'm disappointed. AMD needs to consolidate their lineup from here on out. High end, CPU-only chips are in their twilight years and the potential to make money in their market space is shrinking.

Between this and Intel trying to become competitive in iGPU, I am convinced that this will be the decade we see discrete graphics cards become products only for absolute bleeding edge enthusiast configurations.

You're hilarious? Do you understand the gamer world? Who, even with an APU, in the right mind would use the integrated graphics. If your point were absolutely true, then GPUs would not exist.

As of right now, you are correct. Serious gamers cannot get by on integrated graphics. But it won't be long before the average IGP will be strong enough for mainstream and high end users. I foresee the graphics card going the way of the soundcard.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Actually I just realized. Many are forgetting the CPU basis of the APUs, the CPUs are nothing more (example the A10-6800k), than an i5 at stock.

 

[juanrga]

In fact Intel is introducing Haswell ULV without PCIe support eliminating the possibility to add a dGPU.

May I see the source you read that from?

Here goes the theory

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/12/21/intel-cuts-out-gpus-technical-tidbits/

And here the reality (not PCIe 3 support for dGPU)

http://ark.intel.com/products/75459/Intel-Core-i5-4200U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz