AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[earl45]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

Shhh. Dont say that out loud. AMD fanbois like to believe that this phase of AMD never existed.

They just played Intel's game...you can't take the crown from the master of gouging...even if you have a better product.

So AMD didn't want to charge 1000.00 for the FX, the only reason they did is because Intel
made them do it. WOW

 

[hcl123]

I do not know if you're a troll, but I look forward to the folks reading this who will realize that "FX 8350 has 15% faster clocks and is 25% slower" isn't true in a large number of benchmarks, and it's much more like 7% faster clocks and 25% slower, which makes the IPC difference much smaller than people think.

That is not the worst of this absurd crazy epennies discussions

First is the benchmarks themselves, in honesty we could say its 25% different for some tests, but only representative of that particular benchmarks when running in single-task mode... double flawed because everybody uses their computers in multi-tasking mode (several processes/threads at the same time), and none use benchmarks for work.

Then is oranges to oranges, every victory is only temporary in a normal evolutive paradigma, the real orange of haswell is Steamroller not the 8350(vishera)

This has been a game well played bu intel, it has several times the resources, can push an upgrade pretty fast... pours billions to have a fab node size below, before anyone else, trying to compensate that way any lack of clock suitability...

Again intel can always win this game as long there is gullible eager users that are mistaken that time to market is the most essential (even if they only upgrade in 2 year, and most of times not to the brand new but the cheaper previous ), but eliminating the time skew of development of chips, i have high doubts intel has real been superior in anything technical... but yes their aggressive marketing and market rigging power is tremendously superior, and ppl end up discussing non-technical, non science side and biased epennies argument issues with professional trolls (a reality for hire) or "victims" of that... very hard to tell the difference.

 

[noob2222]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

kinda missed the point. what does a $1000+ cpu have to do with low end?

This Intel promoter's crazy theories. the P4 is better than AMD : proven wrong. The q6600 is better than AMD: proven wrong. The I5 2500k is better than AMD ... wrong in some cases : well then the I7 4770k is better ... still proven wrong in a few cases : well then the I7 980x is better ...

 

[earl45]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

kinda missed the point. what does a $1000+ cpu have to do with low end?

This Intel promoter's crazy theories. the P4 is better than AMD : proven wrong. The q6600 is better than AMD: proven wrong. The I5 2500k is better than AMD ... wrong in some cases : well then the I7 4770k is better ... still proven wrong in a few cases : well then the I7 980x is better ...

Wow, from the E6600 Until today what has AMD had to compete with Intel?

 

[-Fran-]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

kinda missed the point. what does a $1000+ cpu have to do with low end?

This Intel promoter's crazy theories. the P4 is better than AMD : proven wrong. The q6600 is better than AMD: proven wrong. The I5 2500k is better than AMD ... wrong in some cases : well then the I7 4770k is better ... still proven wrong in a few cases : well then the I7 980x is better ...

Wow, from the E6600 Until today what has AMD had to compete with Intel?

The C rev for the Phenom II family has held quite fine in all these years. Specially the 955 C.

Cheers!

 

[earl45]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

I will agree with you on that, and after that then what?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

kinda missed the point. what does a $1000+ cpu have to do with low end?

This Intel promoter's crazy theories. the P4 is better than AMD : proven wrong. The q6600 is better than AMD: proven wrong. The I5 2500k is better than AMD ... wrong in some cases : well then the I7 4770k is better ... still proven wrong in a few cases : well then the I7 980x is better ...

Wow, from the E6600 Until today what has AMD had to compete with Intel?

The C rev for the Phenom II family has held quite fine in all these years. Specially the 955 C.

Cheers!

I will agree with you on that, after the 2600k was released then what?

 

[sarinaide]

Its been fine that developers have been limited forcefully or by necessity to archaic legacy because Intel says so, but why not optimized coding for AMD systems? When will there ever be a change for something new and with potential except the same old excuse is thrown around. Coders for EA and other developer companies have said we are stuck in a limbo and HSA provides a way of expanding beyond that, Some have said we are still in the 80's all that has changed is things look prettier yet there is the same old "you cannot do it" which is funny when you see those who can do it, it ultimately comes down to who gives a damn and has the skills.

Coders of EA and others were hampered by the console they are targeting as their primary platform.

APU =/= HSA. On PC's, there is only the APU so far. Where is the promised HSA ? Hd79xx was supposed to have basic unified memory, but it never happened. AMD has a history of promising a lot, and not delivering. For all the hype AMD have built, where is the damned hardware ?
Even in the PS4 chip, the only part of HSA is the unified memory/PCIE lanes. (Which is a big deed in itself, but falls quite short of what AMD has bragged about.). The same Jaguar chip, on desktops, lacks the unified memory. I seriously doubt AMD's commitment to desktops.

Tahiti prototypes had stacked VRAM and unified memory access but the costs and the fact that no software support was to exist for some time AMD scrapped that (Tahiti was official by October 2011 that means over 20months with no software). Second the HSA foundation only stipulated that 2014 will see more HSA product support, cue Adobe Photoshop PP/C7 whatever they call it. HSA foundation also hosted a open source programmers conferance two weeks ago. Then there is the consoles, ever since then it has been EA the most outspoken on how this potentially changes the landscape. The hardware is coming and has existed since Llano in basic form yet there has been no optimization done.

 

[noob2222]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

kinda missed the point. what does a $1000+ cpu have to do with low end?

This Intel promoter's crazy theories. the P4 is better than AMD : proven wrong. The q6600 is better than AMD: proven wrong. The I5 2500k is better than AMD ... wrong in some cases : well then the I7 4770k is better ... still proven wrong in a few cases : well then the I7 980x is better ...

Wow, from the E6600 Until today what has AMD had to compete with Intel?

I can tell you haven't been keeping up with his conversation. Those were his claims with the 8350 and only the 8350. this isn't a time span arguement.

V V Case in point: ... now the 4770k is a 35w part.

 

[Ranth]

Guys this is getting tiring... stop pushing the page count with this nonsense, stop feeding the troll, and find some new SR articles

 

[juanrga]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

First you miss the main point of the OP. He said that the 3770k is "low end". This is nonsense.

Second, if Intel chips were so good as some believe, then Intel would not waste time and money to cheat benchmarks. It is funny to see the face of some proud 3770k owners, when you show they a openbenchmark (i.e. one that does not cheat) and see the real performance of its chip, with a FX-8350 being up to a 42% faster.

http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=6dc05fb&p=2
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=5a87e9e&p=2
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=293f200&p=2
http://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1210227-RA-AMDFX835085&sha=f236ffc&p=2

Note: those are older tests. More recent tests (GCC 4.8 based) show a FX-8350 competing in performance with an extreme i7-3960X

Richland only includes some aspects of HSA. The first fully enabled HSA APU for PCs will be Kaveri, which is coming this year, with hUMA (unified memory).

What does Richland have to do with HSA , apart from being a CPU+GPU on a die ?

The first semi-HSA device on PC would be Kaveri. And we dont know if it will have hUMA or not. And hUMA is not one thing, but a collection of many types of memory unification, such as register sharing, memory sharing, context switching etc.

As said before HSA implementation comes in phases. Trinity was the first to introduce some elements such as HSA MMU. Richland introduced enhancements

As said above Kavery is the first fully-enabled HSA APU.

 

[juanrga]

First is the benchmarks themselves, in honesty we could say its 25% different for some tests, but only representative of that particular benchmarks when running in single-task mode... double flawed because everybody uses their computers in multi-tasking mode (several processes/threads at the same time), and none use benchmarks for work.

This is one of reasons why most single double... threaded benchmarks are useless. The reviewers run the benchmark, wait, annotate the score, run another benchmark, wait, annotate the score...

Then final users own a FX-8350 and an i5-3570k and hope the former to be slower than the second (because some review sites said they that and showed them some 'benchmarks') then run applications as they do usually, open several apps, game whereas code videos in the background... and find that their FX chip is years ahead of their i5.

 

[sarinaide]

The i7 3770k is low end of what intel are capable of. Notice why laptop cpus are as fast.

They were fully capable of hasfail, slower than ivybridge and toastier, I am actually quite intrigued to find out why you claim a i7 is low end.

 

[sarinaide]

Now we are taking a i7 up against a lower end Llano APU of 2011

Source

Richland is about par with the 5800K in total consumption, it is just distorted in that it runs a base clock of 300mhz higher and a IGP core at 44mhz higher, that is only a solitary watt higher than the i7 2700K and less than 10-15watts to the i7 3770K which is the most efficienct tested there, then we factor in the robust size of the iGPU alone and you can say that is hardly bad but you know how 10W is going to change my life for the better.

What metric are we using to determine whether the i7 is faster than the A6, what the one that the i7 is $350 and the A6 is about $85, it would be pretty embarrasing if a Llano could keep up with a i7...oh wait gaming where HD4600 is about as good as Llano based graphics....only choppier. And if its CPU performance, Kudo's on beating a entry level APU, thats some mighty fine achievement beating a APU based on Stars cores of 2005-6.

I am loving the reason, an i7 is not high end because it doesn't have 6 cores, yet its funny at how close the 2600/2700K ran the i7 3930K despite two less cores

 

[mayankleoboy1]

As said above Kavery is the first fully-enabled HSA APU.

I thought that "full" HSA will be delivered somewhere around excavator. (With all those fancy features like automatically sending all FP calculations to the GPU, for eg.)
Kaveri looks just like unified system and GPU memory, and that too is in doubt whether it will be present on desktop models.

What works great for fixed hardware, may not work so great on variable hardware.

 

[gamerk316]

OMG Again not everything is so multithreaded when in are you guys going to realize this? Seriously when. OpenCL can't be used for every single thing.

First is the benchmarks themselves, in honesty we could say its 25% different for some tests, but only representative of that particular benchmarks when running in single-task mode... double flawed because everybody uses their computers in multi-tasking mode (several processes/threads at the same time), and none use benchmarks for work.

This is one of reasons why most single double... threaded benchmarks are useless. The reviewers run the benchmark, wait, annotate the score, run another benchmark, wait, annotate the score...

Then final users own a FX-8350 and an i5-3570k and hope the former to be slower than the second (because some review sites said they that and showed them some 'benchmarks') then run applications as they do usually, open several apps, game whereas code videos in the background... and find that their FX chip is years ahead of their i5.

Again, for the several hundredth time: The majority of tasks do not scale to multiple threads. Some, like encoding, do, and FX tends to win those benchmarks (as I predicted back before BD even launched, remember?) But single-threaded benchmarks are still perfectly valid, because guess what? The tasks they are simulated also tend to be single threaded, because they DO NOT SCALE. And guess what? Some people like to know how CPU's do at those tasks.

The mindset of "we can make everything parallel, if we try", is stupid and wrong. Some stuff does NOT scale, period. Disregarding benchmarks on that basis alone is silly and shows bias on your part.

 

[-Fran-]

I will agree with you on that, after the 2600k was released then what?

Sandy is a "set point" for Intel (I'd say "match point", but that would mean AMD going bankrupt, haha), nothing to argue there, since BD came right after it... So AMD didn't have anything to offer seriously until PD's 8350 came out and actually closed the gap and got competitive again. If you ask me, the best CPU from AMD until the 8350 was either the Phenom II 980 or the 1100T, where the 1100T is a very good value if you can find it for cheap, if you ask me. This is thinking on the higher tier from AMD, not the lower bargains it has.

Cheers!

 

[8350rocks]

Im not trolling if amd get to sandy bridge levels by 2016 they will have done well from where they are now. Intel are releasing low end products in the market of what they are capable of for the last 3 years and amd still can't beat those low end cpus ie i7 2600k and i7 3770k.

I7 2600k & 3770k ... low end .... Is that why they are $120 more than anything AMD offers? I suppose the $1000+ I7 3970x is resonably priced as well ...

No wonder your trolling.

Here, ill help you out with your illusion. How can AMD reach SB by 2016? I thought AMD was still tring to catch the 486-dx4. AMD is soo slow that it can't even run windows 3.1 . AMD graphics are soo slow that it can't even run DOS. AMD motherboards are soo slow that they don't even boot up. AMD employees are soo slow they ride the short bus to work.

Does that help?

AMD don't have the performance to charge a premium, when they did the FX cost a 1000.00
dollars.

Shhh. Dont say that out loud. AMD fanbois like to believe that this phase of AMD never existed.

They just played Intel's game...you can't take the crown from the master of gouging...even if you have a better product.

So AMD didn't want to charge 1000.00 for the FX, the only reason they did is because Intel
made them do it. WOW

No, Intel didn't make anybody at AMD do anything...you read too much between the lines. From a business perspective, if your competitor can charge an arm and a leg with an inferior product...then why wouldn't you ask all the money for a product you have that's dramatically better?

I think they overcharged...but I waited for prices to drop and still bought a better product than Intel offered. Look at the i7-3970x...it's not anywhere near 500% faster than the FX 8350...but it costs 500% the price of the FX 8350. Is that justified? No more than AMD was justified in asking stupid money. Additionally, the management at that time wanted to go head to head with Intel and be the "big dog" which ended up ultimately putting them in the position they are in now. If they had not done what they did to leverage their assets for a fab, and instead used the Motorola fab they were contracted with at the time, they would probably be in top shape today. However, hindsight is always 20/20...and good foresight is very rare.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

I can see in 2015 amd will be releasing 220w tdp chips to compete with intels 35w tdp chips thats how the two companies are going, amd crank the tdp up, intel can we go even lower and start focusing on arm cpu power envelope.

I don't really care about clock speed as it could be like the pentium m 1.3ghz that destroyed any p4 really out then. The funny thing is the intel pentium m cpu was the best out on the market then the athlon cpus then the crap p4 cpus. The pentium m cpus were like 6x better performance per watt then the p4 cpus.

Anyway amd piledriver currently is like an intel p4 netburst cpu, very inefficient needs a lot more power to compete compared to a competitor cpu. i am prettyu sure the athlon 64 took like 70w less then a p4 single core cpu and basically outperformed it. Intel cpus currently are trying to outperform amd chips taking 90-100w less on peak load. Thats what innovation or amazing cpus are pushing the boundaries of moores law.

Thats why I hope steamroller gets at least 60% better performance per watt then the current piledriver cpu. I find it hard to believe how they can go really backwards on new 32nm process while intel made a gigantic leap on 32nm with sandy bridge.

Look Moores law:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/moores-law-technology.html

hafijur December 16, 2012 3:06:01 PM


|FX 8350 is almost as good as i5 in games but there's some games that loves Intel's platform i.e Skyrim and a few others. AMD is in a bad position right now and if you don't mind a few FPS less in a few games then go for the FX to help them out. We sure need AMD to deter Intel from total monopoly of the market.|

"Intel is king and there's no denying it but AMD is evolving what the CPU is and I like how they're the ones bringing forth this new arch of theirs while Intel is too conservative and don't like innovation too much.

If you don't mind AMD 's bottomline then ignore my post.

This is just hilarious. Intel main aim is innovation like low power cpu for ultrabook. Heck they even funded a lot of money into this. AMD just releasing junk on 32nm barely any better then the 45nm phenom cpu and worse then the old phenom 2 series on a lot of tasks like gflops on intel burn test I believe.

AMD are a good 2-3 years behind. If it weren't for intel then we would not have efficient computers and haswell is the next big step. AMD bulldozer series cpu was so cap on power they had to delay it. It still is crap.

Think of using amd as a server for a company or intel. Lets say amd systems for same performance total take 10000w. Intel for same performance take 4000-5000w thats a big difference isn't it."

It is obvious you want to bash AMD to glorify Intel in countless ways, whether it be a manufacturing process or IRRELEVANT power consumption that is still less than the BASE PRICE of the competing Intel HasBurst™/Hasbeen™/Failwell™/Hasfail™ processor. If you are a user of multi-threaded software, today's FX8350 will utterly destroy your fabled 4670K and can beat the 4770K in many tasks. Steamroller can very well be able catch up with Failwell due to its lack of improvement over Ivy Bridge. Intel's Sandy/Ivy Bridge and even Haswell processors are not at all a bad choice, but stop glorifying Haswell on this thread and leave before we can get the mods to remove your posts. If you want to bash AMD, go somewhere else. Haswell is just a very minor step up for a tock, stop making it some sort of magical object. On that, I will stop feeding the troll.

 

[Cazalan]

Man...I am not psychic...but something tells me one of these is less likely to succeed than the other.

Cost is a factor but MS Dev Studio (paid) is used far more than gcc which is free. While I prefer open standards as well, they can move at a snails pace because there are too many drivers at the wheel.

Especially when resources are shared between a coders jobs that pay the bills, and those that are donated. Few are lucky enough to work on open source projects 100% of the time at full pay.

 

[jdwii]

Also for the 10th time if Amd did not think single core performance mattered they would not be making a 4.8ghz CPU and trying everything to get their single core performance up with Steamroller. When you improve single core performance EVERYTHING is faster.

Yes in a sense, but you are dealing with a "SCALING DEAD" paradigma, its not because intel have not good engineers that hasfail, is hasfail... understand ?... some uarchs more than others, but when you stat relative low, usually you get better improvements, nevertheless in this view IF SR is 30% better, shows that AMD uarch is better than intel actual uarch.

Yet if nothing extraordinary passes, and it forcibly has to do with SOFTWARE... fails as hasfail like, will be the norm for all, simply because its x86 and it doesn't scale anymore... unless a breakthrough paradigma happens in software conjugated with CPU, heavy multithreading or something out of the box like HSA, where its "rumtime" can provide a "dataflow approach" (as example) with heterogenous extensions and even on-the-fly (its a runtime) soft developer kind of transparent speculative multithreading ( that is, spMT transform on-the-fly, "sequential" software in multithreading one -> the reverse Hyperthreading rumour)

It fits then better the GPU paradigma... GPU ALUS run at 1ghz they are 32bit wide relativly pretty "slim" compared with the SSE/AVX ones, yet for data parallel workloads thousands of these slim ALUs in a medium size chip can deliver a severe beating to even 32 or 64 fat CPU cores. (appreciate the difference ?)

So who keeps pushing the single-thread mantra its not AMD its the part of market centered most exclusively on the client/desktop sector(the server side wants MT, but they have plenty of money and machines with plenty of cores). AMD over estimated the chances of having generalized good multithreading software on the client/desktop by the time BD sorted... the problem is not the CPU is the SOFTWARE.

I don't know how much long i'm going to repeat this... the problem is SOFTWARE lol ...

Its also because Amd has shown nothing to be competitive in that area so Intel feels unthreatened. Intel isn't ran by engineers its ran by businessmen who ruin the engineering department somewhat like Amd.

 

[Upendra09]

wow I have missed all these flame wars, anyway it seems right now AMD is still in the same underdog position it was when i bought my 965 Deneb BE, so do you guys think AMD will be able to come up with something better in the coming months? by August? what about in the laptop/Ultrabook market, will AMD be able to outperform Intel in terms of combined CPU/GPU performance?

 

[8350rocks]

wow I have missed all these flame wars, anyway it seems right now AMD is still in the same underdog position it was when i bought my 965 Deneb BE, so do you guys think AMD will be able to come up with something better in the coming months? by August? what about in the laptop/Ultrabook market, will AMD be able to outperform Intel in terms of combined CPU/GPU performance?

Kabini and Temash already do that, they were just released for mobile solutions (laptops/tablets). Also, in the next 4-6 months Kaveri will come out on the desktop, which is the 1st product with the new steamroller cores. FX steamroller is supposed to be coming in Q1 2014.

EDIT: Steamroller is expected to catch up to 4th gen Intel (hasfail) based on projections of 30% improvement via improvements to the architecture.

 

[Upendra09]

I am quite happy with my Deneb but i don't see AMD surpassing intel anytime soon.......do any of you have any more hope for AMD than i?

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

I am quite happy with my Deneb but i don't see AMD surpassing intel anytime soon.......do any of you have any more hope for AMD than i?

Are your referring to single-core performance, because in several multi-threaded applications, the FX8350 can be heaps and bounds faster than thee 3770K and even rivals the 3960X in some GCC 4.8 compiled benchmarks! If Steamroller is 30% faster, it will very likely defeat Haswell. That being said, it all comes down to if the software is biased toward Intel.

 

[amdfangirl]

I am quite happy with my Deneb but i don't see AMD surpassing intel anytime soon.......do any of you have any more hope for AMD than i?

Long time no see :3

How you been? Anything catch fire for no apparent reason?