AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[8350rocks]

i3's can't keep up with the FX 6300...they won't hold a candle to the 8350.

Comparison:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/23/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-fx-8350-vs-i5-3550--fx-6300-vs-i3-3220

Crysis 3 FPS numbers...note the i3 with a GTX 690 can barely break 30 FPS...that isn't fine...

This shows core usage...the i3 is clearly a bottleneck...the FX 4300 is at full usage but just barely not a bottleneck. While the 8350 is at about 70-80% usage average between all the cores.

EDIT: If you consider the 2600k is using hyper threading and pulling resources from the real cores...each core usage average is 89% on the 2600k, which is about what you should expect to see on a 3570k for all 4 cores.

The 8350 is at 75.8% utilization across all 8 cores average, meaning the 8350 has headroom, where the only intel with similar or greater headroom in the data above is the 3970x, and it has greater headroom than the 8350, but by the time you factor in hyper threading, the margin is less than you might think at 50.5% utilization.

 

[Intel God]

i3's can't keep up with the FX 6300...they won't hold a candle to the 8350.

Comparison:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/23/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-fx-8350-vs-i5-3550--fx-6300-vs-i3-3220

Crysis 3 FPS numbers...note the i3 with a GTX 690 can barely break 30 FPS...that isn't fine...

This shows core usage...the i3 is clearly a bottleneck...the FX 4300 is at full usage but just barely not a bottleneck. While the 8350 is at about 70-80% usage average between all the cores.

Those graphs are so old. Like march old. The graph i linked was from a review done a few days ago.

 

[8350rocks]

i3's can't keep up with the FX 6300...they won't hold a candle to the 8350.

Comparison:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/23/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-fx-8350-vs-i5-3550--fx-6300-vs-i3-3220

Crysis 3 FPS numbers...note the i3 with a GTX 690 can barely break 30 FPS...that isn't fine...

This shows core usage...the i3 is clearly a bottleneck...the FX 4300 is at full usage but just barely not a bottleneck. While the 8350 is at about 70-80% usage average between all the cores.

2100 is old tho. 4340 clocked at 3.6ghz should be very decent for 139.99

The FX 4300 is 4 cores, and it's not a bottleneck just barely...2 cores are not enough in Crysis 3...it wouldn't matter if they were clocked at 5.0 GHz, they cannot do the workload sufficiently...HTT or not. The 2600k is at 89% usage with HTT on a quad core. The FX 6300 is also at 80+% average utilization with 6 cores. Crysis 3 cares not for clock speed or IPC, it cares about being able to process the high number of threads running concurrently. Can you run it on a top end i3? Probably...with a $1000 GPU you would likely see frame rates into the 40 FPS range (@3.6 GHz Hasfail i3)...but if you were going buy a $1000 GPU to run Crysis 3...you wouldn't buy an i3 now would you?

 

[cowboy44mag]

cowboy44mag
9 July 2013 03:12:03
Most pc gamers either have 2 cores or 4 cores.
49.84% of steam users for games use dual core and knowing that intel are only the viable dual core gaming cpus, I guess its mainly intel cpus. Remeber a lot of laptop gamers have core i5 dual core machines and i3. Also a lot of people have core 2 duo phenom 2 x2 etc still. You only need 4 cores for a few games.
http://hothardware.com/News/Steam-Hardware-Survey-Reveals-Rising-Dependence-on-Low-End-Hardware/

You MISSED the most important word in my post: FUTURE. I'm not talking about the games that have been produced or the games in development right now. They are all (or at least the vast majority of them) set to the old standard, produced to play on the old outdated PS3 and 360 consoles and stuck utilizing mainly one or two cores. Once they start developing and optimizing for the PS4 and XBone, then we will see what the new generation of gaming brings. The PS3 and 360 consoles both utilize Intel processors, therefore all the games produced for them were optimized to run on Intel processors. Of course Intel gaming rigs run them a little better, they were optimized for the arch. The new PS4 and XBone are AMD based, and will produce games optimized for AMD arch. It will be the first time ever that Intel systems will have to run programs that aren't optimized for their arch but rather optimized for AMD.

Optimizing for AMD arch means employing at least 4, more probably 6 cores (like Crysis 3). In my opinion dual core gaming rigs will become as obsolete as wooden hubs on a car once the industry starts producing games only for the PS4 and XBone, with PC ports of course. I mean how well does an i3 play Crysis 3 when compared to the FX-8350? That is the future.

lol, the xbox 360 and ps3 don't use intel processors. So your point about optimisation is false and theres a reason why intel were annoyed as they always miss out on console market. AMD have xbox one ps4 and wii, intel have nothing.

My bad, I'm not too big to admit when I make a mistake, when I looked up the processors It was late and for some reason I saw IBM and thought it said Intel. Your right, the consoled don't have Intel processors.

The second half of my argument though still holds. Games produced for mulit-core systems (think Crysis 3) are the wave of the future. There is no i3 that can play Crysis 3 like an FX-8350. Dual core gaming is still doomed.

2.9Ghz Haswell dual core plays Crysis just fine. Cant wait to see benchs of the 3.6Ghz I3 Dual core Haswell's

Crysis 3 is only used as the example as it is the first of a new generation type. Crysis 3 still had to be able to be played on the PS3 and Xbox 360, therefore it was restrained a bit from what it could have truly been. Once studios no longer have to make the games run on the old PS3 and 360 then we can see games truly designed to run on multi-core systems. With 8 real cores and at least 16 threads to work with the new games are not going to work very good with any i3 processor (2 cores and 4 threads). Granted the truly multi-threaded games (running 4-8 cores, 8-16 threads) probably will take another 2+ years to appear as studios will have to learn how to code and program for the new consoles strong points, and I'm sure that they will want to produce PS3, Xbox 360, PS4, XBone games for at least a year after the new consoles hit the market to maximize their profits, which will further delay them optimizing for the PS4 and XBone.

i3 2.9 GHz Haswell do how well vs FX 8350s in Crysis 3? i3 2.9 GHz Haswell may be able to run Crysis 3 at lower settings, but they can't compete in the same league as the FX 8350, nor will a 3.6 GHz i3. Dual core gaming's days are numbered, and anyone who thinks they are going to have a "future proofed" i3 gaming rig is just buying into the hype.

 

[8350rocks]

Dates for AMD's APU13 developer conference have been announced, along with keynote speakers, 11-14 Nov 2013.

http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-announces-keynote-2013jul09.aspx

 

[juanrga]

There are already games that take advantage of more then 4 cores and intel still beats the 8350. Stop spreading amd PR and wait for benchmarks.

If the game loads 6 or 8 cores to less than 50% then that is not taking advantage. If the game loads the cores above a 70% then it is taking advantage and AMD performs better. Consider Eurogamer recent poll: all triple-A game developers recommend the 8350 as best gaming cpu for future games.

lol, I find it funny people actually believe that nonsense. The amd cpus already lose on a lot of multithreaded benchmarks, i7 2600k 3770k 4770k all beat the fx8350 on multithreaded tests in general. Lets not forget intel have 6 core cpus and next year 8 core cpus. So amd cpus need all 8 cores to be used to be nearly on par with a 4 core intel cpu. So in future it might be close but it won't beat it like you think. At best equal, most games slower currently though.

The 8350 destroys the 2600k/3770k/4770k in multithreaded tasks. In fact a 'cheap' 8350 outperforms an ultra-expensive six-core 3960X in some multithreaded benchmarks. Yes, Intel will be releasing 8-core chips, but AMD has released centurion (18% increase performance) now and then Steamroller (>30%).

That 8 core amd cpu in consoles is most likely less powerful then an i3 3220.

Benchmarks show that 4-core jaguar (4 threads) are faster than an i3 (4 threads). The 8-core jaguar (8 threads) in next consoles will compete with i7 (8 threads) PCs. Precisely all the PCs used in PC-console comparisons/demos use an i7. It is not casual.

 

[Cazalan]

The FX 4300 is 4 cores, and it's not a bottleneck just barely...2 cores are not enough in Crysis 3...it wouldn't matter if they were clocked at 5.0 GHz, they cannot do the workload sufficiently...HTT or not.

A 5Ghz i3 wouldn't be that bad actually. It calculates out to 55fps.

I think we all know dual cores are on the way out though. Even the budget chips (Jaguar/Atom) have 4-8cores.

 

[Cazalan]

Benchmarks show that 4-core jaguar (4 threads) are faster than an i3 (4 threads).

I'd like to see those.

 

[Intel God]

There are already games that take advantage of more then 4 cores and intel still beats the 8350. Stop spreading amd PR and wait for benchmarks.

If the game loads 6 or 8 cores to less than 50% then that is not taking advantage. If the game loads the cores above a 70% then it is taking advantage and AMD performs better. Consider Eurogamer recent poll: all triple-A game developers recommend the 8350 as best gaming cpu for future games.

I think you have the wrong idea of what gaming across 6-8 cores means. BF3 stresses my 4 cores to around 42%. IF the game were developed to use all 8 cores CPU usage would drop on the individual cores. You're never going to see that much usage on an upcoming enhanced game unless you're gaming at 1024X768.

At 1080P and above the GPU is doing the majority of the work

 

[-Fran-]

If Intel had the guts to give us an i3 with 4Ghz+ clock speeds, then they'd be out of business, haha. Old games don't use more than 2 cores heavily, so i3s are "good" enough thanks to HT and cache (AVX support as well, since Pentiums and Celerons don't have it AFAIK).

Also, that's a very interesting point, juanrga. Current i5s K series will be the lowest CPU you'll want for games thanks to high clocks and 4 core count. I wonder how many Hertz you'll need to OC the i5s to be on par with the 4M/8T 8320s and 8350s down the road.

Cheers!

 

[noob2222]

We already know haswell 8 core extreme on new platform =the cpu tdp is 130-140w tdp. The 4770k consumes a lot less then the a10 apu cpu. I reckon the haswell 8 core cpu should consume in between an fx4300 and an fx6300 and be close to 2x faster then an i7 4770k at heavily multithreaded benchmarks.

Here is 3770k vs fx4300 watts under load.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/fx-8350-8320-6300-4300_8.html#sect0

To make it 8 cores I would say you need another 40w more for the 8 core on new platform.

Anyway steamroller has to improve like 80% better performance per watt just to get to sandy bridge levels.

Wow ... thats all I can say ...

haswell to sb ... reduced load power from 112W to 102 ... a whopping 10W or 10% reduction ...

Now take that 10% power savings to SB-E ... 189W -10% = 170W for a 6-core HW-E ... pretty close to the 8350 ... add in 2 more cores and your back over the 8350 power draw.

As per your a10 ... wow ... 1 watt less than the a10 6700 ... thats soo massive, but idle power difference of 4 watts blows Hasbeen away if 1 watt is considered "a lot less".

epic fail: pretending hasbeen is the greatest thing around.

If you've been following our IDF Live Blog you've already seen this, but for everyone else - Intel gave us a hint at what Haswell will bring next year: 20x lower platform idle power compared to Sandy Bridge, and up to 2x the GPU performance of Ivy Bridge. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6262/intels-haswell-20x-lower-platform-idle-power-than-sandy-bridge-2x-gpu-performance-of-ivy-bridge

from TR's chart, discrete gpu on sb - 45W, idle on hasbeen with igp ... 27W ... where does this 20x come in? maybe if you overclock sb and disable idle speeds. ROFL, even with that sb would need to draw 540Watts (20x27W).

 

[Intel God]

If Intel had the guts to give us an i3 with 4Ghz+ clock speeds, then they'd be out of business, haha. Old games don't use more than 2 cores heavily, so i3s are "good" enough thanks to HT and cache (AVX support as well, since Pentiums and Celerons don't have it AFAIK).

Also, that's a very interesting point, juanrga. Current i5s K series will be the lowest CPU you'll want for games thanks to high clocks and 4 core count. I wonder how many Hertz you'll need to OC the i5s to be on par with the 4M/8T 8320s and 8350s down the road.

Cheers!

Has anyone properly tested a locked I5 with a Z87 board? I want to see if the Bclk overclocking is indeed locked

 

[ethereal essence]

8350rocks 89% cpu usage lol, none of the cores were loaded that much. You are trying to say a cpu usage of 45% is like 89% now, how low will you stoop. Your graphs provide evidence that the i7 2600k has much more headroom then the fx8350 but you say the opposite. One more thing no one in there right mind will use an i3 cpu lower power consuming then pair it up with a gtx690. See how the amd a4 cpu paired up with a gtx690 performs, most like 5fps. Lets see how the amd a4 cpu side with the gtx 690 on crysis 3 to make it compared to a similar power envelope cpu.

Also i3's with gtx 650ti will cope with most games perfectly without cpu bottleneck. The i3 cpu probably is a very popular cpu among gamers on i3 and i5 mobile cpus. If there was a steam survey I think most people use intel dual cores as main gaming cpu.

I wouln't be suprised if steamroller flops like piledriver and bulldozer, plenty of hype, shocking delay and end result performance and power consumption.

first of all did you read 8350's post? if you looked carefully the i7 2600k is pushing 80% on all its cores, then there is some data for the virtual cores which use the 4 REAL cores' resources... so yes 89% or so is not much of a far fetched estimation. The 45% you are claiming is from the 3970x and he wasn't even talking about that one.

the i3 can cope with a lot of games... for now. but you really think dual core processors will be able to keep up with games for much longer?

 

[juanrga]

Intel haswell 8 core should more then double the fx8350 performance and consume similar electricity to an fx4300 cpu.

I will ask again: are not you tired of posting nonsense daily?

So? The point is that it is 8 core CPU, so the new games will be using at least 4-6 cores (depending on how many cores will be actually usable for games in PS4/X180). Thefore, AMD's 8 core FX/Steamroller will kick 4 core i7s in the butt just like in Crysis 3.

What butt kicking are you talking about :lol:

LOL. Look to the benchmark. They selected some section of the game which is poorly threaded. Look to the six core i7s performing the same that the 3770k. The difference with the i5 is explained entirely in terms of clock. Or look to the FX 4170 core being faster than the FX 8150 core.

They clearly benchmarked some section using 4-threads or less. Not a good example of the performance of next generation games. Sorry.

For example of AMD performance in multithreaded games, look at gamegpu benchmark given above or look to this

You can see how the i7 six core is much faster than the i5. And how the FX-8 is about twice faster than the FX-4.

 

[Intel God]

Intel haswell 8 core should more then double the fx8350 performance and consume similar electricity to an fx4300 cpu.

I will ask again: are not you tired of posting nonsense daily?

So? The point is that it is 8 core CPU, so the new games will be using at least 4-6 cores (depending on how many cores will be actually usable for games in PS4/X180). Thefore, AMD's 8 core FX/Steamroller will kick 4 core i7s in the butt just like in Crysis 3.

What butt kicking are you talking about :lol:

LOL. Look to the benchmark. They selected some section of the game which is poorly threaded. Look to the six core i7s performing the same that the 3770k. The difference with the i5 is explained entirely in terms of clock. Or look to the FX 4170 core being faster than the FX 8150 core.

They clearly benchmarked some section using 4-threads or less. Not a good example of the performance of next generation games. Sorry.

For example of AMD performance in multithreaded games, look at gamegpu benchmark given above or look to this

You can see how the i7 six core is much faster than the i5. And how the FX-8 is about twice faster than the FX-4.

That was published back in February. Crysis Patch's have made some changes

 

[Intel God]

noob2222 going from 37w idle to 27w idle on same 22nm process but I believe a bit of that was due to new pch 32nm motherboard, is still impressive.

Why do people say hasfail when haswell is a game changer cpu. First intel cpus with igpus that are good enough to game even on the higher settings with the iris pro, lower idles, thinner form factor for laptops first real increase in battery life for like 10 years. Intel cpus are in an amazing level right now, no wonder amd are nowhere near it in a technological standpoint. I think amd were caught suprised by sandy bridge and there own bulldozer and piledriver cpus underformed and power usage was there biggest issue. Steamroller has to improve on a lot of things to make it noteworthy to be compareable as a whole cpu to sandy bridge levels. For example most amd users go on about price. If you forget price then you will see intel the leaders in innovation. Haswell has basically doubled virtually everthing bit wise which may come in handy in terms of total performance in future and added avx2.

People say "hasfail" because they're just mad they cant afford it :lol:

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Oh and one more thing haswell is intels most revolutionary cpu since conroe core 2 duo cpus. Haswell is crazy on idles and the gpu has reached a very high level nvidia and amd have had to bump the entry level gpu performance up. Also the performance has improced while taking less electricity tio complete the same task so increased performance per watt.

such amazing idle power from hasbeen that its 5 watts more efficient than AMD's 8350 ... ya .. 5!

Amazing that intel put sooo much time, effort and money trying to reduce power consumption that their far superior than any other industry 22nm is barely better than 32nm AMD. AMAZING that Intel actually sucks that bad at thier 20x less power claim pre-hasbeen.

your so stuck on energy consumption that im willing to bet that you drive 40km/h every where you go because thats the most efficient speed, then again, you probably don't even have a car.

kinda funny, bit tech's overclocked numbers are nearly what xbit's stock is. I wonder who is lying to you, shouldn't be hard to figure out, one is a brittish web page.

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

AMD is very good PPW on 7k cards aside from the ghz edition that wasn't designed for PPW but more on raw power. Even the standard 7970 competes with all of Nvidia's cards.

The titan lost value very miserably.

combine the 2 charts and the 7750, 7850 and 7870 are top of the value both in the short and long run.

Considering that the new GTX 700 series isn't on there I can assume that this is ~more than 2 months old. Try to find something that is updated.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Juangra to keep this short you really think an amd 8 core jaguar cpu will compete with an i7 with 8 threads. The console relies on the graphics card, hence why they put a low end cpu. These consoles are mainly gonna use the 8850 based gpu for gpgpu to run the games on the ps4. Oh the 8350 loses on 80%+ of heavily multithreaded benchmarks compared to the i7's you mentioned. Also dual core gaming is not doomed, in fact most gamers have dual core cpu. One other thing the i7 3960x on 100% cpu threaded tasks won't lose to an amd cpu until probably 2016 if amd improve massivcely from the lows they are on the desktop market cpu wise.

8350rocks 89% cpu usage lol, none of the cores were loaded that much. You are trying to say a cpu usage of 45% is like 89% now, how low will you stoop. Your graphs provide evidence that the i7 2600k has much more headroom then the fx8350 but you say the opposite. One more thing no one in there right mind will use an i3 cpu lower power consuming then pair it up with a gtx690. See how the amd a4 cpu paired up with a gtx690 performs, most like 5fps. Lets see how the amd a4 cpu side with the gtx 690 on crysis 3 to make it compared to a similar power envelope cpu.

Also i3's with gtx 650ti will cope with most games perfectly without cpu bottleneck. The i3 cpu probably is a very popular cpu among gamers on i3 and i5 mobile cpus. If there was a steam survey I think most people use intel dual cores as main gaming cpu.

I wouln't be suprised if steamroller flops like piledriver and bulldozer, plenty of hype, shocking delay and end result performance and power consumption.

I feel like all your doing is one of two, or both:

1. You are pulling random information (that you may think is true) from the back of you brain.

2. You are using ~ information that is irrelevant to the model in discussion to prove a point.

Stop doing what I used to do when I was a noob, and find some real information, like I showed you a couple pages back.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

noob2222 going from 37w idle to 27w idle on same 22nm process but I believe a bit of that was due to new pch 32nm motherboard, is still impressive.

Why do people say hasfail when haswell is a game changer cpu. First intel cpus with igpus that are good enough to game even on the higher settings with the iris pro, lower idles, thinner form factor for laptops first real increase in battery life for like 10 years. Intel cpus are in an amazing level right now, no wonder amd are nowhere near it in a technological standpoint. I think amd were caught suprised by sandy bridge and there own bulldozer and piledriver cpus underformed and power usage was there biggest issue. Steamroller has to improve on a lot of things to make it noteworthy to be compareable as a whole cpu to sandy bridge levels. For example most amd users go on about price. If you forget price then you will see intel the leaders in innovation. Haswell has basically doubled virtually everything bit wise which may come in handy in terms of total performance in future and added avx2.

DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT POWER FOR THE LAST FRIGGEN TIME!!? Haswell is not bad, but it is lackluster for the Desktop performance upgrade, Iris Pro is basically a bit worse than 7660D with a jacked up price tag once it gets to 1600x900 or above. Just stop putting nonsense about power consumption and performance per watt (Use an icebox instead of a refrigerator if you are so worried) and understand this thread is comparing Steamroller to Piledriver with the occasional mention of Haswell. The Intel fanboy invasion seems to have started when GOM3R (no offense) was linked by 8350rocks.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

GOM3RPLY3R
5 minutes ago

That was a stock cpu power consumption you gave thinking it was oc'd. Anyway one thing that is 99% sure is amd have a much smaller budget. I suppose AMD competing is a good thing, amd releasing cpus means no high price cpus from intel. AMD are not an option in laptops or desktops for me other then possibly the netbook market. Consoles are the only AMD cpu I will be really getting with the ps4. I don't mind there gpus that much as they are close enough and are better on certain other stuff. I think intel are thinking bulldozer and piledriver sales are payback from amd for intels own netburst junk cpus when intel and amd both had 4-5x better performance per watt cpus in the athlon I believe and pentium m .

To be honest, NetBurst was not that bad, it was just sticking with it with Prescott and its eventual demise with the Pentium D. Northwood was actually pretty good to think of it. I would take a Northwood 2.8C all day over a Pentium M@1.8 with a 479 to 478 adapter. Stop posting AMD-smearing content and overexaggerating power consumption, it is getting annoying.

 

[8350rocks]

GOM3RPLY3R
5 minutes ago

That was a stock cpu power consumption you gave thinking it was oc'd. Anyway one thing that is 99% sure is amd have a much smaller budget. I suppose AMD competing is a good thing, amd releasing cpus means no high price cpus from intel. AMD are not an option in laptops or desktops for me other then possibly the netbook market. Consoles are the only AMD cpu I will be really getting with the ps4. I don't mind there gpus that much as they are close enough and are better on certain other stuff. I think intel are thinking bulldozer and piledriver sales are payback from amd for intels own netburst junk cpus when intel and amd both had 4-5x better performance per watt cpus in the athlon I believe and pentium m .

To be honest, NetBurst was not that bad, it was just sticking with it with Prescott and its eventual demise with the Pentium D. Northwood was actually pretty good to think of it. I would take a Northwood 2.8C all day over a Pentium M@1.8 with a 479 to 478 adapter. Stop posting AMD-smearing content and overexaggerating power consumption, it is getting annoying.

Just checked, the top of the thread says AMD still??!? So, wondering why is he in here anyway?!

GOM3R may be somewhat annoying, but at least he is listening to information and absorbing the technical discussion about AMD architecture...he has gotten off of the top of his Intel pedestal and is now standing on the 2nd step from the top...LOL. I can stand someone looking at valid information and actually asking relevant questions...I cannot stand someone spouting nonsensical rubbish about power constantly.

 

[Mitrovah]

does anyone have educated idea as to the range of watts the kaveri apus may use? considering the increased graphic power which is more than a sure thing?. some have speculated betwee 100 and 65ww but if the graphics are most certainly more powerful than the richland trinity how can it stay within that range. Im a newbie but it seems to me all the speculation would suggest the apu will be more power hungry than the rich a10

 

[juanrga]

Benchmarks show that 4-core jaguar (4 threads) are faster than an i3 (4 threads).

I'd like to see those.

A 40% faster clock per clock

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=159069

Juangra to keep this short you really think an amd 8 core jaguar cpu will compete with an i7 with 8 threads. The console relies on the graphics card, hence why they put a low end cpu. These consoles are mainly gonna use the 8850 based gpu for gpgpu to run the games on the ps4. Oh the 8350 loses on 80%+ of heavily multithreaded benchmarks compared to the i7's you mentioned. Also dual core gaming is not doomed, in fact most gamers have dual core cpu. One other thing the i7 3960x on 100% cpu threaded tasks won't lose to an amd cpu until probably 2016 if amd improve massivcely from the lows they are on the desktop market cpu wise.

What I said is that a 8-core jaguar in a console will compete with an i7 in a PC.

The 8 thread FX-8350 wins most multithreaded benchmarks compared to the 8 thread i7s and can outperform even a 12 threads i7-3960x in some few benchmarks.

Dual cores are outdated for gaming (unless you are only playing older titles) and quads will be next year.

 

[8350rocks]

does anyone have educated idea as to the range of watts the kaveri apus may use? considering the increased graphic power which is more than a sure thing?. some have speculated betwee 100 and 65ww but if the graphics are most certainly more powerful than the richland trinity how can it stay within that range. Im a newbie but it seems to me all the speculation would suggest the apu will be more power hungry than the rich a10

Because of the process improvements and the node shrink, the expectations are that the TDPs for the new Kaveri APUs will either be similar or less than current Richland parts...I expect unlocked APUs to be 100W TDP and the locked APUs to be 65W or less. Power consumption is actually going to be less with Kaveri.

 

[juanrga]

That was published back in February. Crysis Patch's have made some changes

Yes, Crytek released a patch that optimizes the game for the 3770k whereas decreases the performance of the AMD chips (I wonder why), but the old and cheap 8350 continues being faster than both the i5-3570k and the new Haswell i5-4670k.

Besides that and that the patch gives lots of problems to lots of users (Crytek forums are full of angry users), the eurogammer recomendation is the same the FX-8350 is preferred over the i5 for future gaming.

Why do people say hasfail when haswell is a game changer cpu.

People say "hasfail" because they're just mad they cant afford it :lol:

Let us see why people says hasfail, hasbeen, failwell...

Promised 15% increase in performance? Fail. Benchmarked 5% average. Regressions in some tests. Funny how one of you gave a Crysis 3 benchmark where the failwell i5 is slower than the ivy Bridge i5.

Promised graphics performance of 650M level? Fail. Those were with cheated synthetics. In real games it perform poor. Moreover, performance drops badly with increased resolution and the chip is power hungry and expensive. Most OEMs are rejecting Haswell GT3e.

Desktop Haswell consumes more power than Ivy. Efficiency is poor. Fail

Haswell OC poor than Ivy. Fail

Haswell runs hotter than Ivy. TDPs are higher as well. Fail

Tomshardware doesn't recommend any Haswell chip in the updated gaming hierarchy. And a clearly pro-Intel site as Anandtech said in a recent review that Haswell desktops "are a joke".