AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[8350rocks]

in this order who will gain more is ARM... the silent intruder to the throne ...the A57 is already on top of performance of Jaguar and ahead on Atom ( its ISA is prone to light and fast software)(edt).... the polarization of discussions intel vs AMD is starting to get quite abhorrent, a flush of passions with total lack of vision and reason)

Where have you seen A57 benchmarks?

All I've seen is press releases and theoretical performance numbers. Nothing real world yet.

AMD is expecting the A57 to beat jaguar in efficiency and performance per core. At least in some microserver workloards. It could be they are comparing a 2GHZ A57 to their current 1.4ghz jaguar cores. Either way, A57 should come close to jaguar and silvermont in microserver applications.

You left off the caveat...I fixed it

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

I need not say it again and again: Intel is out to make their CPUs run better and more efficient.

Yes I know Haswell (Hasfail as most call it), and I agree, that is kind of a step in the wrong direction. However, when is there not a release of a new product that requires tweaking and tuning to make it right? If everything worked the first time, our economy wouldn't be in the shit hole, and there would be more world peace.

Along with this, yes the APU is fantastic since it is "all this power for a low price", I agree. However people need to realize. What is the power of it? Equivalent to ~ a FX-8350 underclocked to 3.5, and a AMD 6750? Yeah, it will be good on price, and even with the newcomers, similar to how duncan3303 (Austin) on youtube made a $350 rig with the A10-5800k (which is like the 6800k but with 6570 GPU levels). However he did mention, it will probably run Battlefield 3 on Medium settings (No AA), Low HBAO, all at ~30 Frames.

Now take this into consideration. Would you rather buy FX-8350 with a Radeon HD 6750, or a A10-6800k? Obviously the APU since it is MUCH cheaper. However, the power that you have in that PC, will probably last you no more than a year if you want to run games close to High settings.

This is where the gimmick is in place. People fail to realize the obvious.

And 8350, that drug I'm taking? It's called knowledge, you should definitely not take that and take it away from your kids.

EDIT: Also as a last mention. I know it's a bit pricey, but who has the strongest CPU? Yeah its called "The Intel Extreme Series". I know it costs more money, but if you have the money, its totally worth it.

 

[hcl123]

in this order who will gain more is ARM... the silent intruder to the throne ...the A57 is already on top of performance of Jaguar and ahead on Atom ( its ISA is prone to light and fast software)(edt).... the polarization of discussions intel vs AMD is starting to get quite abhorrent, a flush of passions with total lack of vision and reason)

Where have you seen A57 benchmarks?

All I've seen is press releases and theoretical performance numbers. Nothing real world yet.

There is no chip yet ARMv8 64bit, except for Applied for micro-servers, in the real world... and there the tests like with IBM are for costumers "internal" consumption.

But i believe the ARM architectural licensees for 64bit can do much better than the ARM simulations indicate, and this include the serves guys including AMD, Qualcomm, Nvidia and Samsung ( i think)... and perhaps Apple will join not much longer (depends on how much bags of money Intel puts on top of the table lol).

I think its inevitable ARM will spill in force into the mobile world including Notebooks, but in this market sector benchmarks are quite harder to conclude anything, too much difference in platforms and subsystems. So "real world" benchmarks of ARM 64bit will be quite harder to extrapolate... the ISA is different, the software is completely different( a relax memory model)... and is the software that "commands performance" NOT the hardware ( for the hardware(edt) would be enough to know the GIPS and the GFLOPS potential and the CLOCK ), *believing* (its a believe) otherwise is an abhorrent state of denial.

Want REAL high performance, demand REAL high performance software, multithreading an vectorized and what not, the hardware guys just can't do miracles.

An old example with the "SAME EXACT HARDWARE" and 1500% gain only by the software side tweaking of the "SAME APPLICATION".

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 organization obtains out-of-the-box scores by compiling unchanged source code, and it obtains full-fury scores by changing the source code to improve performance but still follow the EEMBC rules. In most cases, the changes engineers make to the code enable use of vector/SIMD instructions that compilers were unable to do automatically. 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

This is the HPC world in action... but it wouldn't have to be that much, NOT everything is highly paralelizable or vectorable in the client/desktop world, but i think 100 to 200% is quite possible for a couple of years ahead with more cores chips ( yet ppl seems content discussing 10 to 20% instead )

So benchmarks concern... if you control their code you can present any results you like... its representative of its own SOFTWARE mostly, and most of time like with synthetics, hardly any representative of any "real world" software. Is what it is running that software, but don't go there with *absolute* extrapolations, because with *other software* running on the same processor(s) at the same speed the results can be diametrical opposed.

And for the windows world the perspective is worst, like shown by the Win8 and 8.1 versions, the infrastructure is moving into the "cloud", having powerful workstations is moot in the usefulness department to say the least.

 

[jdwii]

^ again you're not going by single core performance you're going by 2 threads. Intel's design no longer lowers single threaded performance and it takes no extra die area to use HT(lower cost,lower TDP). Amd is also easily without a doubt 30% slower per clock for one their CPU's are clocked 20+% higher and their still slower per core, people can be in denial all they want but at the end of the day its the truth.

You act like CMT doesn't force the cores to fight for resources. Also when are people going to learn everything can't be parallel? Never i believe. Its said that some people find themselves making excuses saying things like benchmarks don't matter and calling it fake i hope Amd and Intel are smarter than that because if they're not we're not going to see anything great in years.

4.2Ghz to 3.9Ghz is 7% difference not 20%

And CMT doesn't have to "oblige" to fight for resources, If AMD wanted it could have everything doubled , double Fetch, double Branch, double Decode, double Cores, double FPU... yet maintain the same EXACT " modular cluster topology" with "vertical multi-threading" and what not.... matter of fact they already have SMT like intel for some functional resources. Its a question of balance and tradeoffs(can't design any chip with infinite resources like in simulations), some things go well shared some don't, but in the end CMT as a concept and particularly in AMD implementation is quite flexible, and better than any SMT implementation (not only of intel).

avoid talking about what you have few/no knowledge.

Go by stock clock not the turbo also go by the competition such as the 8 core fx vs i5

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

^ again you're not going by single core performance you're going by 2 threads. Intel's design no longer lowers single threaded performance and it takes no extra die area to use HT(lower cost,lower TDP). Amd is also easily without a doubt 30% slower per clock for one their CPU's are clocked 20+% higher and their still slower per core, people can be in denial all they want but at the end of the day its the truth.

You act like CMT doesn't force the cores to fight for resources. Also when are people going to learn everything can't be parallel? Never i believe. Its said that some people find themselves making excuses saying things like benchmarks don't matter and calling it fake i hope Amd and Intel are smarter than that because if they're not we're not going to see anything great in years.

4.2Ghz to 3.9Ghz is 7% difference not 20%

And CMT doesn't have to "oblige" to fight for resources, If AMD wanted it could have everything doubled , double Fetch, double Branch, double Decode, double Cores, double FPU... yet maintain the same EXACT " modular cluster topology" with "vertical multi-threading" and what not.... matter of fact they already have SMT like intel for some functional resources. Its a question of balance and tradeoffs(can't design any chip with infinite resources like in simulations), some things go well shared some don't, but in the end CMT as a concept and particularly in AMD implementation is quite flexible, and better than any SMT implementation (not only of intel).

avoid talking about what you have few/no knowledge.

Go by stock clock not the turbo also go by the competition such as the 8 core fx vs i5

the i5 vs the 8350 at stock clock is ~ equal performance. Just goes to show, with the Intel at half the cores and at less clock, that is a LOT of core power. Imagine that in a 8 core i5 (hypothetical), it would destroy. And the problem with the price of some of the processors is the Hyper Threading. The i7-3770k is literally an i5-3570k with HT on it. If it were just an 8 core CPU then it would be ~$400-500 but you would have insane performance, kind of like a dual LGA 1155 with two i5's but in one CPU.

 

[Intel God]

http://wccftech.com/amd-centurion-fx-9590-5-ghz-processor-previewed-close-core-i74770k/

lol, intel have a power hungry chip. 1.536v at 5ghz. That must take from the wall about 500w-600w for just the cpu alone and the funny thing is it will to lose to a 4770k that will take around 110w from the wall. AMD have built there own netburst cpu it seems.Make rubbish and oc it higher to win ghz war but its so dumb a 2ghz 8 core intel will destroy it. Intel must be laughing 1.5v+ for a stock chip with turbo core. Intel think 0.7v or 0.8v is high on there i7's.

Also 8.62 on cinebench r11.5 for centurion, 4770k stock gets 8.12 and oc'd to 4.7ghz 10.12 and that at total power consumption oc'd at 171w to something like 500-600w for the centurion to get 8.62. Intel haswell 8 core will probably score 15 points and take less power then the fx4300.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

I feel if steamroller is not revolutionary architecture wise amd will be longer on desktop market cpu wise.

My 4770K uses 179w at 4.8Ghz under Cinebench so i'd full expect an 8 core version to use double that at the same speed. It cant get here fast enough

 

[Intel God]

http://wccftech.com/amd-centurion-fx-9590-5-ghz-processor-previewed-close-core-i74770k/

lol, intel have a power hungry chip. 1.536v at 5ghz. That must take from the wall about 500w-600w for just the cpu alone and the funny thing is it will to lose to a 4770k that will take around 110w from the wall. AMD have built there own netburst cpu it seems.Make rubbish and oc it higher to win ghz war but its so dumb a 2ghz 8 core intel will destroy it. Intel must be laughing 1.5v+ for a stock chip with turbo core. Intel think 0.7v or 0.8v is high on there i7's.

Also 8.62 on cinebench r11.5 for centurion, 4770k stock gets 8.12 and oc'd to 4.7ghz 10.12 and that at total power consumption oc'd at 171w to something like 500-600w for the centurion to get 8.62. Intel haswell 8 core will probably score 15 points and take less power then the fx4300.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

I feel if steamroller is not revolutionary architecture wise amd will be longer on desktop market cpu wise.

My 4770K uses 179w at 4.8Ghz under Cinebench so i'd full expect an 8 core version to use double that at the same speed. It cant get here fast enough

Thats the thing the centurion probably takes 500-600w from the wall with motherboard etc at 5ghz amd. The 8 core haswell will probably score 16 points on cinebench 11.5 and take similar electricity to an fx4300 or fx6300.

Its not even going to be close.

 

[juanrga]

Thats the thing the centurion probably takes 500-600w from the wall with motherboard etc at 5ghz amd. The 8 core haswell will probably score 16 points on cinebench 11.5 and take similar electricity to an fx4300 or fx6300.

Are not you tired of writing the same off-topic anti-AMD nonsense in all forums (including outside of toms)?

 

[hcl123]

http://wccftech.com/amd-centurion-fx-9590-5-ghz-processor-previewed-close-core-i74770k/

lol, amd have a power hungry chip. 1.536v at 5ghz. That must take from the wall about 500w-600w for just the cpu alone and the funny thing is it will to lose to a 4770k that will take around 110w from the wall. AMD have built there own netburst cpu it seems.Make rubbish and oc it higher to win ghz war but its so dumb a 2ghz 8 core intel will destroy it. Intel must be laughing 1.5v+ for a stock chip with turbo core. Intel think 0.7v or 0.8v is high on there i7's.

Also 8.62 on cinebench r11.5 for centurion, 4770k stock gets 8.12 and oc'd to 4.7ghz 10.12 and that at total power consumption oc'd at 171w to something like 500-600w for the centurion to get 8.62. Intel haswell 8 core will probably score 15 points and take less power then the fx4300.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

I feel if steamroller is not revolutionary architecture wise amd will be longer on desktop market cpu wise.

edit: changed from intel to amd.

In truth go see past posts, around 170w average(extremesystems)... no chip LOL no chip at all will "effectively" draw 600w without setting on fire and get to smoke... power is a function of temperature and mobo VRMs... (gee... why i waste my time !?)

In fact is just a little above the 3970x

Just better comparative is IBM z196next, its ~600mm², that is, the size of 2x 3970x ... runs at 5.5Ghz and consumes average <250W for 24/7 all year for many years(can't burn out or fail its mainframe stuff)... so consumes about 80% of that 2 intel chips(is less power than 2 intel extremes).. yet performs perhaps about 5 times better than those 2 extreme intel chips (about 10x better performance of one extreme on windoze), comparing with windows software.

Why ? ... because everything is fine tuned compile-install( at 1 million per top config machine it ought to be lol )

and an example ... that title is hilarious "comes close to to 4770k" LOL... propaganda never stops, it must be a great business to fool ignorants... he must mean like this...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm_clang33_3way&num=4

 

[montosaurous]

Here's my take on this, for anyone who wants to hear it:

Steamroller is heavily integrating iGPU and CPU on APUs. I think separating the 2 is going to be a bit of an adjustment that will likely take some time to do. I wouldn't be surprised if Steamroller Opterons without iGPU aren't seen until sometime end of Q1 2014. It will take them some time to get everything worked out. This may be why we're not hearing a lot about desktop CPUs at this point.

The Opteron 3000 series with 8 PD cores is substituted at the end of 2013 by a Berlin CPU with 4 SR cores. Nothing with more than 4 SR cores is announced for 2014. It is difficult to believe that FX 6/8 SR cores will be released for 2014.

Also, I think that the 12/16 core Opterons could be a way for AMD to continue FX on an AM4 CPU platform. Now, if they did that, it wouldn't be the first time...but it would be a bit crazy.

Crazy is not the word I would use. Also it makes no sense for me that AMD is dropping the 4/6/8 threads Opteron and retain the 12/16 threads, whereas introduce new 2/4 threads CPUs.

Why nothing between 4 and 12 threads for the whole 2014? Again AMD roadmap only make sense for me if Steamroller is a 1C/2T design. Then the substitution of Opterons by Berlin plus Warsaw makes sense as (square brackets denote PD cores and curly brackets denote Steamroller cores):

2013: [4/6/8/12/16 threads]
2014: {4/8 threads}[12/16 threads]

And in 2015 AMD could introduce 6C/8C steamroller for substituting the Warsaw chips

2014: {4/8 threads}[12/16 threads]
2015: {4/8/12/16 threads}

Well, as I said, AMD have ported server parts over before, however, the biggest thing I see is that they might basically have to redesign Vishera 2.0 with a die shrink, and SR front end if they do steamroller FX cores, and the HSA features would require an AMD GPU to function.

However, I also think that they may have done the following to speed up getting product to market:

APUs have notoriously received the newest tech first...especially considering the market for OEM systems that it caters to, as well as HTPCs and other entry systems.

If they designed the integrated systems first focusing all efforts on that, it would make sense for SR cores on FX to come about 1-2 Quarters behind. Considering that there are already Kaveri LP server ES's leaked, I firmly believe we will see Kaveri early Q3, which gives AMD through end of Q1 to get SR out for FX and Opterons. I think they may be using APUs to gauge the performance and may adjust their market scheme accordingly.

While I dislike the thought that they may be "flying by the seat of their pants" on this one, it somewhat makes sense. SR is likely the last hoorah for FX series, and if Kaveri takes off poorly, then the FX series may be something they forego releasing. However, if the early indications of Kaveri's capability are anything near what it comes out to be...then we will end up with something special, and I think AMD would warrant producing the FX line.

My other thoughts run to this...

Why hire Jim Keller back, if you don't intend to compete for the high performance desktop segment? Additionally, why would Jim Keller go on record saying "AMD are on track to catch up in high performance cores"?

Adding those 2 statements into the fold makes no sense if they're not already waiting with SR FX designs that they're tweaking for retail, and Opteron server parts for the high end market.

Additionally, they have received a ton of server orders from large financial institutions running 1U configurations, and they've ordered the high end stuff to run their databases and encryption programs to protect their assets.

I think the roadmap released in Q1 2014 will show that SR FX is coming, it may not be as quickly as we like. Though, if you consider that this may be their last attempt to compete for DT market share...if I were Jim Keller, and this was my "masterpiece" for DTPCs, then I would make 100% certain that it was going to be everything I promised and perhaps a bit more.

I am ultimately not concerned.

Thats the thing the centurion probably takes 500-600w from the wall with motherboard etc at 5ghz amd. The 8 core haswell will probably score 16 points on cinebench 11.5 and take similar electricity to an fx4300 or fx6300.

Are not you tired of writing the same off-topic anti-AMD nonsense in all forums (including outside of toms)?

Yes I'm tired of fanboys spewing hate and lies too, but this is their battleground essentially.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

I'm sorry, and no offence. However, I cannot take you seriously:

a.) Please type in an eligible manner
b.) Reread and refine what you are talking about.

Totally agree. If a CPU and board took 500-600w out of the wall, expect to call the fire department. I could see something like 200 watts, maybe 250 watts at the absolute maximum. If you're going to be a fan boy, please learn your information. Thus far you seem like one of those Xbox fanboys who say, "XBOX IZ BETTER!111!111!1!!1!!1" Then I say, "Well, then tell me why?" Answer: "Uhhh, BECAUSE IT ISSSSZZZ!11"

This is a serious thread, I hope I don't have to give you another example again.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Thats the thing the centurion probably takes 500-600w from the wall with motherboard etc at 5ghz amd. The 8 core haswell will probably score 16 points on cinebench 11.5 and take similar electricity to an fx4300 or fx6300.

Are not you tired of writing the same off-topic anti-AMD nonsense in all forums (including outside of toms)?

I'm sorry, and no offence. However, I cannot take you seriously:

a.) Please type in an eligible manner
b.) Reread and refine what you are talking about.

Totally agree. If a CPU and board took 500-600w out of the wall, expect to call the fire department. I could see something like 200 watts, maybe 250 watts at the absolute maximum. If you're going to be a fan boy, please learn your information. Thus far you seem like one of those Xbox fanboys who say, "XBOX IZ BETTER!111!111!1!!1!!1" Then I say, "Well, then tell me why?" Answer: "Uhhh, BECAUSE IT ISSSSZZZ!11"

This is a serious thread, I hope I don't have to give you another example again.

Well checking the voltage of the fx8350, now I reckon 450-500w is realistic from wall at 5ghz. I am talking with motherboard etc from the wall with a 100% cpu only test it should take that at 5ghz. I reckon I am within less then 10% of what power consumption will be.

Also I am pretty confident the haswell 8 core cpu without oc should definately take less electricity rthen an fx6300 and will be about an fx4300 level. With the new heat spreader on haswell e I reckon you could oc it to 6ghz all 8 cores easily. A lot of amd users don't care about power consumption and rather save £30 now when it will cost more in 3 years time through electricity cost if you look at the bigger picture and thats if you use the computer cpu for like 3 hours a day intensively. If you are a heavy user in 1 year the power consumption saved form using an intel cpu over an amd cpu will more then save like £30.

This is why steamroller has to take around 90w less on all there range of cpus and perform about 66% better to get to intel extreme 8 core haswell levels. As you can see intel hold all the cards at the moment. You can call me an intel fanboy but I will be getting the ps4 with amd apu and gpu in it as not only is it the most advanced amd system but has the latest playstation specific games. Intel improved dramatically while amd gone down intels very own netburst architecture, high ghz high heat dissipation and power draw for very little performance gain over a part that takes less electricity then amds slowest fx series cpu. Also haswell cpu platform idles are halved in laptops and igpu has improved which means amd last hope amds are now under threat and intel are aggressively pricing these for manufacturers. Call it unethical but the consumers get it cheaper.

The only cpus that interest me from amd are temash and kaveri and kabini for a small netbook type style laptop.

You seem to reckon a lot of things. I agree that the FX takes much more power than the i5 or i7, however please fix your statements.

This is full load on stock clock and voltage (4.0 Ghz):

However, this is the full load @ 5.0Ghz with a voltage of ~1.5 like you said:

You are right that it's higher, but it wasn't that high. Just like I predicted: "200 maybe. 250 Maximum".

 

[juanrga]

Yes I'm tired of fanboys spewing hate and lies too, but this is their battleground essentially.

Be specific/unambiguous.

I wonder what the price of the fx9590 is, if its more then £250 not many people will even buy it.

And after being shown to be completely wrong about power consumptions, now return with price for another anti-AMD attack...

 

[mayankleoboy1]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=154773

 

[hcl123]

I'm sorry, and no offence. However, I cannot take you seriously:

a.) Please type in an eligible manner
b.) Reread and refine what you are talking about.

Totally agree. If a CPU and board took 500-600w out of the wall, expect to call the fire department. I could see something like 200 watts, maybe 250 watts at the absolute maximum. If you're going to be a fan boy, please learn your information. Thus far you seem like one of those Xbox fanboys who say, "XBOX IZ BETTER!111!111!1!!1!!1" Then I say, "Well, then tell me why?" Answer: "Uhhh, BECAUSE IT ISSSSZZZ!11"

This is a serious thread, I hope I don't have to give you another example again.

Sometimes i wonder!..

My point capable of raising the back head hair of all "intel fanboys" is that the BD/PD chips are already better than intel ones.(edt)

Ok! they will shove me in the face me a lot of charts... i accept ALL of them (do the same with all showing)... only i point its a SOFTWARE effect, like the link i point showing a FX8350 >600% better than a 3960x, is a "software effect".

Clear example, 1500% better due to software alone( hardware doesn't count here) (edt) !...
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/352312-28-steamroller-speculation-expert-conjecture/page-104#11103697

Ppl never appreciate the difference, they are content discussing 20% in "WINDOWS WORLD", never giving a second thought why it is so. In the old days the "benchmark industry" never was as developed as it is today, it suffice to know the clock and the MIPS of a chip to know its potential, because ppl knew that if the potentials are higher, compile-install and tune the software usually the performance is better.

Perhaps was because there wasn't the social network infrastructure as is now, discussions were much more technical in nature, today most ppl seem to not have a clue what they are talking about, propaganda is rampant, its all about the "commercial" aspect... they are simply being duped.

So many have shown charts where intel chips perform much better, i shown charts where AMD performs much better... where do we stand ?... is it the hardware ? ... NO!

Technically is what it is, only the discussions are polarized about emotions, not reason. If you had a clue, you wouldn't post what you posted, perhaps all you care like most is "WHO WINS" at something, like if it is a soccer/football game, never giving a second thought who plays better and is a better team, and or if the referee was biased and influenced the result ... in soccer/football, even the best team who plays better can lose, and or lose at some game against a competitor yet be the clear champion, trace in this aspects with "software effects".

Hope this helps. And yes, if you didn't understand, i posted that AMD is better than intel... so what ? ... "clock" matters, number of real "cores" matters, scalability of uarch design matters... does it make me a fanboy ? ... or is it because of the more verbose, nobody ever compiled a piece of software in their lives ?

And no, i don't use windoze... and if you ever did, don't remember, don't bother showing me anything of that awkward world again, its NOT for me... understand ?

 

[8350rocks]

I need not say it again and again: Intel is out to make their CPUs run better and more efficient.

Yes I know Haswell (Hasfail as most call it), and I agree, that is kind of a step in the wrong direction. However, when is there not a release of a new product that requires tweaking and tuning to make it right? If everything worked the first time, our economy wouldn't be in the shit hole, and there would be more world peace.

Along with this, yes the APU is fantastic since it is "all this power for a low price", I agree. However people need to realize. What is the power of it? Equivalent to ~ a FX-8350 underclocked to 3.5, and a AMD 6750? Yeah, it will be good on price, and even with the newcomers, similar to how duncan3303 (Austin) on youtube made a $350 rig with the A10-5800k (which is like the 6800k but with 6570 GPU levels). However he did mention, it will probably run Battlefield 3 on Medium settings (No AA), Low HBAO, all at ~30 Frames.

Now take this into consideration. Would you rather buy FX-8350 with a Radeon HD 6750, or a A10-6800k? Obviously the APU since it is MUCH cheaper. However, the power that you have in that PC, will probably last you no more than a year if you want to run games close to High settings.

This is where the gimmick is in place. People fail to realize the obvious.

And 8350, that drug I'm taking? It's called knowledge, you should definitely not take that and take it away from your kids.

EDIT: Also as a last mention. I know it's a bit pricey, but who has the strongest CPU? Yeah its called "The Intel Extreme Series". I know it costs more money, but if you have the money, its totally worth it.

http://wccftech.com/amd-centurion-fx-9590-5-ghz-processor-previewed-close-core-i74770k/

lol, amd have a power hungry chip. 1.536v at 5ghz. That must take from the wall about 500w-600w for just the cpu alone and the funny thing is it will to lose to a 4770k that will take around 110w from the wall. AMD have built there own netburst cpu it seems.Make rubbish and oc it higher to win ghz war but its so dumb a 2ghz 8 core intel will destroy it. Intel must be laughing 1.5v+ for a stock chip with turbo core. Intel think 0.7v or 0.8v is high on there i7's.

Also 8.62 on cinebench r11.5 for centurion, 4770k stock gets 8.12 and oc'd to 4.7ghz 10.12 and that at total power consumption oc'd at 171w to something like 500-600w for the centurion to get 8.62. Intel haswell 8 core will probably score 15 points and take less power then the fx4300.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/01/intel-core-i7-4770k-cpu-review/7

I feel if steamroller is not revolutionary architecture wise amd will be longer on desktop market cpu wise.

edit: changed from intel to amd.

*ba dum tish*



You guys are great...the jokes keep coming!!!

 

[8350rocks]

http://wccftech.com/amd-centurion-fx-9590-5-ghz-processor-previewed-close-core-i74770k/

I wonder what the price of the fx9590 is, if its more then £250 not many people will even buy it.

'There are some intresting details regarding the FX-9590 provided by the user, the chip runs at idle on 1.4GHz at 0.875V while at 5 GHz turbo clock speed, it pushes to an 1.513V.'

For sure you need like a good 1000w psu if you are using it as a gaming machine with lets say with a single 7970. It will be interesting to see if it blows up or not, amd are literally pushing thermals boundaries of a cpu power envelope and releasing them.

200-220W CPU + 350W HD 7990 + everything else = ~ 600-700W peak power draw, So yes a 1000W PSU would be good to keep the PSU from running full load at any point...but then again, an Intel machine with a HD 7990 would likely have a 1000W PSU as well.

I fail to see your point...

Many high end gaming machines have 1000-1200W PSUs, and those typically have CF/SLI HD 7970/GTX 680 setups...most of the power draw comes from the GPUs.

Look, just because you run around concerned about battery life in ultrabooks and laptops doesn't mean the rest of the world is...in fact, you might be the only person I have ever met that is so concerned with power draw. I would think you must live in the Amazon rainforest 1000 miles from anything with a gas powered generator for electricity with the way you're concerned about it.

Move on already please...no one cares about your power consumption argument. Many have already expressed as much multiple times in this thread alone.

 

[hcl123]

Thus far you seem like one of those Xbox fanboys who say, "XBOX IZ BETTER!111!111!1!!1!!1" Then I say, "Well, then tell me why?" Answer: "Uhhh, BECAUSE IT ISSSSZZZ!11"

And if you thought i'm "EMOTIONAL" polarized against intel and MSFT( edt)... according to what i shown(1500% better remember ?)... usually those "game console" guys are able to extract much more performance form their hardware than in the PC world, because they sponsor coding "their games" much more close-to-the-metal, and is not because its AMD hardware, if it where Nvidia+Intel hardware would be the same thing. ("software effect" again, software rules)

So don't be surprise if some of those games, that many "IGNORANTS" parrot the hardware is mediocre compared with the best of PC world, ends up having games performing better than in PC world, in fluidity, quality of image and FPS, than in PC world with a 670 or a 7970.

( c'mon do you think MSFT and Sony have engineers that are stupid, that they chose middle to entry level hardware compared to PC world, only because they are seeking a debacle ? ... LOL ... but yes, perhaps someone (the engineers or most ppl) is being very stupid about the all verbosity that circulates about the next crop of consoles!..)(edt)

 

[8350rocks]

Thats the thing the centurion probably takes 500-600w from the wall with motherboard etc at 5ghz amd. The 8 core haswell will probably score 16 points on cinebench 11.5 and take similar electricity to an fx4300 or fx6300.

Are not you tired of writing the same off-topic anti-AMD nonsense in all forums (including outside of toms)?

I'm sorry, and no offence. However, I cannot take you seriously:

a.) Please type in an eligible manner
b.) Reread and refine what you are talking about.

Totally agree. If a CPU and board took 500-600w out of the wall, expect to call the fire department. I could see something like 200 watts, maybe 250 watts at the absolute maximum. If you're going to be a fan boy, please learn your information. Thus far you seem like one of those Xbox fanboys who say, "XBOX IZ BETTER!111!111!1!!1!!1" Then I say, "Well, then tell me why?" Answer: "Uhhh, BECAUSE IT ISSSSZZZ!11"

This is a serious thread, I hope I don't have to give you another example again.

Well checking the voltage of the fx8350, now I reckon 450-500w is realistic from wall at 5ghz. I am talking with motherboard etc from the wall with a 100% cpu only test it should take that at 5ghz. I reckon I am within less then 10% of what power consumption will be.

Also I am pretty confident the haswell 8 core cpu without oc should definately take less electricity rthen an fx6300 and will be about an fx4300 level. With the new heat spreader on haswell e I reckon you could oc it to 6ghz all 8 cores easily. A lot of amd users don't care about power consumption and rather save £30 now when it will cost more in 3 years time through electricity cost if you look at the bigger picture and thats if you use the computer cpu for like 3 hours a day intensively. If you are a heavy user in 1 year the power consumption saved form using an intel cpu over an amd cpu will more then save like £30.

This is why steamroller has to take around 90w less on all there range of cpus and perform about 66% better to get to intel extreme 8 core haswell levels. As you can see intel hold all the cards at the moment. You can call me an intel fanboy but I will be getting the ps4 with amd apu and gpu in it as not only is it the most advanced amd system but has the latest playstation specific games. Intel improved dramatically while amd gone down intels very own netburst architecture, high ghz high heat dissipation and power draw for very little performance gain over a part that takes less electricity then amds slowest fx series cpu. Also haswell cpu platform idles are halved in laptops and igpu has improved which means amd last hope amds are now under threat and intel are aggressively pricing these for manufacturers. Call it unethical but the consumers get it cheaper.

The only cpus that interest me from amd are temash and kaveri and kabini for a small netbook type style laptop.

You seem to reckon a lot of things. I agree that the FX takes much more power than the i5 or i7, however please fix your statements.

This is full load on stock clock and voltage (4.0 Ghz):

However, this is the full load @ 5.0Ghz with a voltage of ~1.5 like you said:

You are right that it's higher, but it wasn't that high. Just like I predicted: "200 maybe. 250 Maximum".

Wow...I am somewhat amazed...an objective post. I didn't think you had it in you...

Now, I may have to readjust your position on my list, you come down one notch, you are now 1 step closer to the "light side of the force" than hafijur.

 

[hcl123]

http://wccftech.com/amd-centurion-fx-9590-5-ghz-processor-previewed-close-core-i74770k/

I wonder what the price of the fx9590 is, if its more then £250 not many people will even buy it.

'There are some intresting details regarding the FX-9590 provided by the user, the chip runs at idle on 1.4GHz at 0.875V while at 5 GHz turbo clock speed, it pushes to an 1.513V.'

For sure you need like a good 1000w psu if you are using it as a gaming machine with lets say with a single 7970. It will be interesting to see if it blows up or not, amd are literally pushing thermals boundaries of a cpu power envelope and releasing them.

200-220W CPU + 350W HD 7990 + everything else = ~ 600-700W peak power draw, So yes a 1000W PSU would be good to keep the PSU from running full load at any point...but then again, an Intel machine with a HD 7990 would likely have a 1000W PSU as well.

I fail to see your point...

Many high end gaming machines have 1000-1200W PSUs, and those typically have CF/SLI HD 7970/GTX 680 setups...most of the power draw comes from the GPUs.

Look, just because you run around concerned about battery life in ultrabooks and laptops doesn't mean the rest of the world is...in fact, you might be the only person I have ever met that is so concerned with power draw. I would think you must live in the Amazon rainforest 1000 miles from anything with a gas powered generator for electricity with the way you're concerned about it.

Move on already please...no one cares about your power consumption argument. Many have already expressed as much multiple times in this thread alone.

You forgot double or triple monitors for some of the more adventurous... and even double SLI or Xfire setups are not that uncommon...

And some even have non LED monitors in double and triple setup... only those big monitors in U-HD resolutions and action games, consume much more power than any CPU... yet since they bought a "green" CPU... that no matter its TDP rating, in games at those high resolutions are already drawing 200W... they think they are "green" LOL ... what a bunch of s***** gits!

I mention multiple monitor setup because it doesn't pass by the box PSU, the "mind conditioning" the "brainwash" is such that they can't see anything else... "" my electric bill went roof high, it must be the CPU"" LOL... ( the best is to avoid such discussions, not even with a baseball bat could be resolved, its cases for straitjackets lol)

[ The same playing all night long during winter with the electric heating " pumping high" and the sound going true a surround "home theater system" ( i have a friend with that)... in the end the culprit for power waste is the CPU LOL ](edt)

 

[blackkstar]

Intel fanboys are completely ignorant of the integral role instruction sets play in a CISC ISA. I have always wondered what would happen if I were to do an FX 8350 review where I only use FOSS software, go full AVX/SSE/BMI/etc for the AMD and then leave the Intel running x87.

It is probably the easiest way to gain the attraction of Intel PIE and rabid fanboys who don't read reviews (let alone understand anything beyond a bar graph).

However if you want my opinion on the whole 4M/8T Steamroller FX, they're going to come. AMD's big Opterons have been bleeding market-share left and right, they simply can't compete with Intel there because PD is just so power hungry compared to what Intel offers.

But, take a look at typical AMD market-share in the general market, and then compare it to Steam hardware survey.

16.7% general AMD CPU marketshare:
http://beta.fool.com/leokornsun/2013/04/02/this-underdog-is-just-another-dog/28650/

26.7% gamer AMD CPU marketshare:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

5.5% Opteron marketshare as of 2011:
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=40&doc_id=1286510

From a business perspective, I would think that the best things to do would be:

1. Stop competing with Intel directly in the server space. Compete by offering things Intel can't (microservers, HSA APUs, etc) and abandon the fight for a strong x86 CPU

2. Create a good gaming CPU that synergizes with 8 core Jaguar APU to continue the higher than average marketshare in gaming PCs

3. Make the new CPU compatible with AM3+ to get the budget gamers who want a CPU upgrade and went 3M/6T CPUs without buying a new motheboard (these guys are budget gamers, they don't have tons of money to drop all the time on new hardware)

4. Abandon raw x86 performance fight in mobile and aim for perf/watt and GPU performance.

1 is what stands out regarding AMD's server roadmap the most. Instead of trying to turn server chips into desktop chips (like they normally have been doing), it would make sense for them to start with gaming chips as that's probably their strongest x86 market right now and then if there's demand turn those into server chips.

2 is important as I don't see AMD squandering a chance to have software optimized for their CPUs after having a life of ICC and crippling AMD via software.

The rest aren't as important, but I do see the first ones making sense. AMD actually grew a little on steam hardware survey. Even though the growth is small, it's the only market AMD is actually growing in right now, which is PC gaming.

 

[8350rocks]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-42LM620T-42-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/B007IYW3HO

Got this tv a lot cheaper then on amazon about 60% less then on there but as you can see 52w power consumption is pretty impressive. Its always good to upprade at a cheap price with decent power efficiency. Its not worth getting power guzzling stuff in this day and age hence why amd on the desktop market are no hopers. Especially in the summer theres more chance of a power supply blowing up with so much power draw stressing psu's. Instead of total performance, most companies are going for performance per watt, Nvidia are like 30% ahead in game performance per watt then amd gpus, intel cpus are 100% better performance per watt then amd cpus on desktop market.

I always laugh when people compare the ghz of the cpus to make it seem fair, intel cpus need less ghz to outperform amd these day on same cores or even on half the cores. From a technological standpoint intel are miles ahead of the competition. AMD are trying to brute force sales on desktop market by marketing ghz and cores.

Intel haswell 8 core cpu being like 130-140w keeps them in line with what there extreme cpus have always been. AMD are trying to make up for there inefficiency by doing stuff to make it less efficient, I mean 5ghz cpu once turbo'd at over 1.5v. Intel cpus are under 0.8v on there recent i7 quads. So if you want to buy cpus that haven't really innovated for last 5 yearsapart from going to 32nm on desktops get amd if you want a company always innovating get intel.

All technology is limited by power. To put this in to perspective a haswell i7 4770k at 5ghz gtx titan vs the centurion cpu at 5ghz with low end gpu like 10w tdp the intel system with titan will take less electricity by a good 100w.

Now you're trolling...the GTX Titan draws 350W...the 4770k draws 138W...that's 488W.

Even the 9590 + HD 7750 (which runs on PCIe power no additional power connector) would draw about 300-350W (What the Titan draws alone).

Go back to your gas generator in the rainforest, we don't care.

 

[Intel God]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-42LM620T-42-inch-Widescreen-Freeview/dp/B007IYW3HO

Got this tv a lot cheaper then on amazon about 60% less then on there but as you can see 52w power consumption is pretty impressive. Its always good to upprade at a cheap price with decent power efficiency. Its not worth getting power guzzling stuff in this day and age hence why amd on the desktop market are no hopers. Especially in the summer theres more chance of a power supply blowing up with so much power draw stressing psu's. Instead of total performance, most companies are going for performance per watt, Nvidia are like 30% ahead in game performance per watt then amd gpus, intel cpus are 100% better performance per watt then amd cpus on desktop market.

I always laugh when people compare the ghz of the cpus to make it seem fair, intel cpus need less ghz to outperform amd these day on same cores or even on half the cores. From a technological standpoint intel are miles ahead of the competition. AMD are trying to brute force sales on desktop market by marketing ghz and cores.

Intel haswell 8 core cpu being like 130-140w keeps them in line with what there extreme cpus have always been. AMD are trying to make up for there inefficiency by doing stuff to make it less efficient, I mean 5ghz cpu once turbo'd at over 1.5v. Intel cpus are under 0.8v on there recent i7 quads. So if you want to buy cpus that haven't really innovated for last 5 yearsapart from going to 32nm on desktops get amd if you want a company always innovating get intel.

All technology is limited by power. To put this in to perspective a haswell i7 4770k at 5ghz gtx titan vs the centurion cpu at 5ghz with low end gpu like 10w tdp the intel system with titan will take less electricity by a good 100w.

Now you're trolling...the GTX Titan draws 350W...the 4770k draws 138W...that's 488W.

Even the 9590 + HD 7750 (which runs on PCIe power no additional power connector) would draw about 300-350W (What the Titan draws alone).

Go back to your gas generator in the rainforest, we don't care.

Do you just make numbers up as you go? :lol:

Titan - 250w

 

[8350rocks]

Load power consumption GTX Titan 421W:

Who is making up numbers?

 

[jdwii]

Load power consumption GTX Titan 421W:

Who is making up numbers?

Don't show that i love Amd video cards and that makes me think Amd sucks in performance per watt. Luckily all i really care about is Price/Performance