AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[juanrga]

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

which are the same as the current generation: 17W/25W/35W for mobile and embedded applications, and 65/100W for desktops and workstations.

Besides using an improved 28nm process, the Steamroller cores in the CPU allow for a more efficient chip.

 

[Intel God]

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".

When did intel ever say Haswell would be 15% faster then ivy? I've never seen a slide even hinting at that. Haswell is just ivy with a reworked back end, more instruction sets, more powerful IGP and on die VRM's.

Who cares about the IGP :lol:

Haswell consumes more power then ivy? Since when? :lol:

Haswell doesnt overclock huh? The Costa Rica chips are showing up and they're overclocking oh so well compared to the Malaysia's

No offense to toms but who cares what they recommend? Everyone knows when you want the best performance you buy intel. Want 2nd best? Amd's the best choice

 

[noob2222]

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.

funnny you keep pointing out how much intel improved on ivy yet still hasn't caught up to amd's 32nm. hasbeen was designed all about reducing power and can't compete against 32nm. this is a fail of billions of r&d.

you keep bragging about iris pro wich is only available in a laptop and hasn't been shown for its power consumption. its slower than gtx 640m so most laptop vendors are opting to sell hw with a 650m for the same price as iris pro. fail #2

you keep bringing up that bit tech power consumption yet most every other review shos ivy being slightly better and up to 30Watts lower power than hasfail. fail #3.

hasbeen changed nothing over ivy bridge aside from idle power.

 

[noob2222]

Spoiler

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.

mainly because we were talking about titan. not mush has changed with 700s.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_760/28.html

 

[palladin9479]

Can we cease and desist with the bashing of either company. This is a thread about AMD's products, specifically the upcoming SteamRoller. A little comparison is ok but this is getting out of hand.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

Can we cease and desist with the bashing of either company. This is a thread about AMD's products, specifically the upcoming SteamRoller. A little comparison is ok but this is getting out of hand.

^This

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

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".

When did intel ever say Haswell would be 15% faster then ivy? I've never seen a slide even hinting at that. Haswell is just ivy with a reworked back end, more instruction sets, more powerful IGP and on die VRM's.

Who cares about the IGP :lol:

Haswell consumes more power then ivy? Since when? :lol:

Haswell doesnt overclock huh? The Costa Rica chips are showing up and they're overclocking oh so well compared to the Malaysia's

No offense to toms but who cares what they recommend? Everyone knows when you want the best performance you buy intel. Want 2nd best? Amd's the best choice

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.

lol, are you still being serious. That 8 core jaguar cpu will struggle to beat the i3 3220. I think the console cpu at best will be 30% faster then the i3 3220 on some benchmarks seeing that link. If dual cores are outdated then why do i3's spank most quads from 2-4 years ago at gaming as it is BS if you are on about intel dual core cpus. Also where an earth does the fx8350 win on 100% cpu benchmarks to an i7 3960x when 90% of the time the 3770k 4770k and 2600k beat the fx8350 at most of the tests, I think anandtech don't even have 1 benchmark out of like 30 that the fx8350 wins against the i7 4770k. In fact notebookcheck have the slowest intel haswell i7 47w mobile cpu a lot faster then the fx8350.

Andandtech is known to many, as biased towards intel. Notebookcheck is also known as absolute f4il in some cases. It is once threading gets better that the FX8350 will start to be even faster. Now, please go away or (preferably) contribute in a helpful, non Intel Fanboy-like manner. Don't post Intel biased benchmarks and start talking about relevant topics RELATING TO STEAMROLLER! The mods will start deleting these types posts as seen at the initial post. Stop posting nonsense on TDP (>implying that the Intel does not cost money to operate too and that the FX8350 has about the same cost for the initial purchase+ power than the Intel 3570K's initial price) and understand that Haswell-E 8-Core will cost an arm and a leg, that is where the 12/16-core Opterons come in, not the FX line.

 

[noob2222]

^^ and intel generates its own power it soooo efficient at getting blind followers who can't comprehend average benchmarks and only look at the biased and skewed numbers as being true.

kaveri at 28nm is going to smash hasbeen on idle power.

 

[cowboy44mag]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20130331080217_AMD_We_Are_On_Track_With_Steamroller_Micro_Architecture_in_2013.html

Interesting, I wonder if amd do release a lot of steamroller based cpus in 2013 or will the main ones get released in 2014. I reckon if everything goes perfectly steamroller may come close to sandy bridge efficiency which is a significant improvement over piledriver. AMD need to improve like 80% performance per watt to get to those levels. We shall see if intel have any real competition for the first time in a while.

The only Steamroller processors I expect to see in 2013 will be APUs, I doubt the FX Steamroller will debut until first quarter 2014. That is bad in a way as every Intel fanboy on the internet is going to jump all over their i7s outperforming the new Steamroller APUs. They will overlook the fact that the FX line is what is made to compete with i5 and i7. Their delay may unfortunately give Steamroller a bit of a black eye until the FX line releases.

As I have more than adequate cooling, and I live in a country where we don't have to power our houses with a little mouse running on a wheel, I'm not too concerned with performance per watt. I'm concerned with pure performance. I'm thinking that Steamroller will match Ivy Bridge in pure performance. That is single core execution I'm looking for Steamroller to be very close to or match Sandy Bridge, and multi-core execution I'm looking for Steamroller to outperform Haswell (4 core processors) across the board. That would basically put Steamroller between Sandy Bridge and Haswell performance wise or basically at around Ivy Bridge.

With Steamroller poised to be much better at single core execution and the best general purpose processor in multi-core execution it will all come down to what software you are running as to is Intel better or is AMD better.

Before someone pounces on Intel's upcoming 8 core Haswell- Yes, I'm sure the 8 core Haswell processors will best Steamroller FX, however the cost of building a system with an 8 core Intel processor would be staggering. I find it totally puzzling how Intel fans jump all over performance per watt and then point out how 8 core Haswell will destroy everything else. I wonder what the performance per watt on one of those bloated beasts will be? With the cost difference between 8 core Haswell and Steamroller FX how many decades would you have to run it non-stop to see your savings in power consumption offset the initial purchase price? I'm guessing a century at least LOL

 

[rmpumper]

I hope AMD will make some deals with mobo manufacturers to release a lot more mITX boards for the Steamroller APUs. The current situation is just laughable - AMD has the best APUs for HTPCs but only a couple mITX mobos that support them.

 

[rmpumper]

The only Steamroller processors I expect to see in 2013 will be APUs, I doubt the FX Steamroller will debut until first quarter 2014. That is bad in a way as every Intel fanboy on the internet is going to jump all over their i7s outperforming the new Steamroller APUs. They will overlook the fact that the FX line is what is made to compete with i5 and i7. Their delay may unfortunately give Steamroller a bit of a black eye until the FX line releases.

As long as Kaveri shows better performance than Piledriver APUs in CPU benchmarks, we will able to get at least a good idea of how much better the FX line will be as well. That's all I care about - to see SR improvements (even if it's for APUs) - to keep me waiting for a Steamroller FX release instead of going Intel route (1055T is still good enough for now).

 

[Ranth]

That didn't help with the doubt Hafi..... Why is it the i7 have lower idle than the i5, makes no sense to me. Considering AMD's bigger process 32nm vs intel's 22 and AMD vastly lower R&D, Intel's idles aren't that impressive IMO, they just caught up to the APU.

I think I might now what you're referring to with the efficiency: What is the greater tech the, x that requires 1000w to do "work" or, y requires 100w to do the same thing. y of course, I agree with that*. However if the 2 are equal and x is cheaper than y, and if people don't care about efficiency they will go for x.

AMD does not need to beat Intel in efficiency to be successful (Excluding servers) they just need to be faster. So if we see an 8450 being faster than an i5-4670k in gaming people who wants to game will go for AMD, even though the AMD part is an 125w part over the 84w. Yes AMD won't have beaten Intel in terms of tech, as Intel still have the best perf/watt, but if people buy the AMD due to perf/dollar what does it matter that you have the best tech if you lose sales**.

I really hope that this came through to you, as the others seems to have missed your point (I hope the above was what you have been talking about ) And I hope that you understand that, yes intel is superior in tech(perf/watt), but that doesn't necessarily means that they will sell, which is ALL(!!!) that counts.

(*As an example: I personally find everything in Nvidias 7xx series boring (except for 780) Because they have worse efficiency and are just higher clocked, that is not moving forward tech(perf/watt) wise.

**Nvidia had a killer with the 680 better efficiency and better performance than the 7970, but look, AMD drivers improved and became slightly better than Nvidia. What did Nvidia do? They INCREASED the TDP of the 770(680) due to higher power consumption, so now the 770 is better than 7970 at the cost of some efficiency. By that you can see that better perf/watt is not as important if you don't have the performance crown in the segment.
)

 

[gamerk316]

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.

Yes, but note a few pages back I showed Crysis 3 is running on 9 threads that do "significant" work. And note the 4 core processor with HTT outperforms the 8 core processor. That's your single core performance benefit in a nutshell.

Also note that generationally, the results are sorted by clockspeed, another indication that Crysis is sensitive to single-core performance. Likewise, IPC clearly benefits the title, hence why a 6300 @ 3.5 outperforms a 8150 @ 3.6, due to PDs IPC edge over BD. Those two extra cores? Not helping absolute performance.

So despite the fact it uses 9 workload threads, which is a rarity, single core performance, not core count, is the determining performance factor for CPUs (beyond a certain threshold at least; 2 core CPU's simply get swamped. Quad Intels look OK though). The only advantage more cores is giving is a lower CPU utilization, which allows for the system as a whole to do more things in the background without affecting performance, but once the CPU reaches the point where it can get all its work done, IPC + Clock, not core count, drive performance.

So, a game that uses 9 workload threads gains best performance with the highest clock + IPC. Which is what I've been saying for years. Yet despite the fact I present a "well threaded" game, show that performance is dominated by clock + IPC, I'm sure people will still argue that single core performance doesn't matter.

 

[cowboy44mag]

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/57197-amd-a10-6700-32nm-richland/?page=9

Just for those that doubt haswell idles and graphics performance per watt. Haswell igpu is believed to be 2x better performance per watt then ivy bridge. Haswell is something amd won't surpass till at least 2016 but I think its possible amd won't surpass hasfail by 2018 on efficiency.

Here we go with performance per watt again, and again, and again, and again..... Man you must really have an energy crisis where you live!! I mean come on as a community can't we get together and send hafijur a high yield generator? That little mouse powered generator running on the wheel he has just isn't cutting it, the poor thing needs a rest!! If we don't do something soon PETA is going to use the poor guy as their next campaign target!!

 

[cowboy44mag]

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.

Yes, but note a few pages back I showed Crysis 3 is running on 9 threads that do "significant" work. And note the 4 core processor with HTT outperforms the 8 core processor. That's your single core performance benefit in a nutshell.

Also note that generationally, the results are sorted by clockspeed, another indication that Crysis is sensitive to single-core performance. Likewise, IPC clearly benefits the title, hence why a 6300 @ 3.5 outperforms a 8150 @ 3.6, due to PDs IPC edge over BD. Those two extra cores? Not helping absolute performance.

So despite the fact it uses 9 workload threads, which is a rarity, single core performance, not core count, is the determining performance factor for CPUs (beyond a certain threshold at least; 2 core CPU's simply get swamped. Quad Intels look OK though). The only advantage more cores is giving is a lower CPU utilization, which allows for the system as a whole to do more things in the background without affecting performance, but once the CPU reaches the point where it can get all its work done, IPC + Clock, not core count, drive performance.

So, a game that uses 9 workload threads gains best performance with the highest clock + IPC. Which is what I've been saying for years. Yet despite the fact I present a "well threaded" game, show that performance is dominated by clock + IPC, I'm sure people will still argue that single core performance doesn't matter.

Of course single core performance is still important, no one is debating that If single core performance wasn't important AMD wouldn't be working so hard to increase single core performance with Steamroller. All that others are trying to point out is the future games, using Crysis 3 as a first generation "blueprint" for how a game is made, will have to have good single core execution and the ability to run multiple cores and threads. Crysis 3 as a first generation type game utilizes 9 threads heavily, what will happen when games are optimized even more for multi-thread use? Games using 10, 12, 16 threads? How will a dual core 4 thread or even a quad core 8 thread machine hold up then?

Piledriver already "stacks up" well compared to the much more expensive i7s in Crysis 3. Steamroller is set to vastly improve single core execution over Piledriver. Where would that put Steamroller on that chart? What gamers looking to the future are seeing is dual core processors utilizing 4 threads are already showing they aren't going to make it much longer in the new gaming world. Quad core processors utilizing 8 threads will be next, as you pointed out Crysis 3 already utilizes 9 threads and they had to release a patch just so Intel processors could "shine". That is what makes Steamroller one of processor types for the future: a real effort to improve single core execution and I fully expect the FX Steamroller to be at least 8 core, but a 10 or 12 core would be awesome. As previously said Steamroller won't be in the class by itself, Intel is going to release 8 core Haswell, but how many gamers will be able to afford an 8 core Haswell when a 4 core Haswell is already priced way too high?

 

[Ranth]

Here we go with performance per watt again, and again, and again, and again..... Man you must really have an energy crisis where you live!! I mean come on as a community can't we get together and send hafijur a high yield generator? That little mouse powered generator running on the wheel he has just isn't cutting it, the poor thing needs a rest!! If we don't do something soon PETA is going to use the poor guy as their next campaign target!!

I Hope we are misunderstanding what he's implying. I think he's going at this not due to his fear of wasting watts but more about what I posted above:

"I think I might now what you're referring to with the efficiency: What is the greater tech the, x that requires 1000w to do "work" or,y requires 100w to do the same thing. I agree with that*. However if the 2 are equal and x is cheaper than y, and if people don't care about efficiency they will go for x."

By that if you had to choose between the two and say which one is the best tech without thinking sales/money. The answer is y or intel. I think that is his point.

 

[8350rocks]

My point is this...

8350 + HD 7970 GHz > 4670k + HD 7870 for the same money.

You made your spiel about perf/watt...I made my point about perf/$.

Perf/$ > perf/watt to a great majority here...that's why your point has not been taken seriously at all.

/rant

Which system looks like a better build?

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faOi
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faOi/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faOi/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($179.99 @ Microcenter)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ Outlet PC)
Motherboard: Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX/GEN3 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($69.98 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Corsair Force Series GT 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB Video Card ($389.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Zalman Z12 Plus ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: PC Power & Cooling Silencer Mk III 750W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1236.88
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-10 10:39 EDT-0400)

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faQh
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faQh/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faQh/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($329.97 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ Outlet PC)
Motherboard: Asus Z87-PLUS ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($69.98 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB Video Card ($389.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Zalman Z12 Plus ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: PC Power & Cooling Silencer Mk III 750W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1206.87
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-10 10:41 EDT-0400)

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

My point is this...

8350 + HD 7970/GHz > 4670k + HD 7950 for the same money.

You made your spiel about perf/watt...I made my point about perf/$.

Perf/$ > perf/watt to a great majority here...that's why your point has not been taken seriously at all.

/rant

Less then £40 difference for just the cpu, not sure on motherboard.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/HIS-Edition-GDDR5-3072MB-2xMiniDP/dp/B0093RJ08E/ref=sr_1_3?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1373466810&sr=1-3&keywords=7970+ghz
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Asus-7870-Radeon-DirectCU-Graphics/dp/B008A1C252

So £174 more the 7970ghz edition costs compared to 7870. So your defintion of same money is like intel cpu and the gpus you put for same money is actually like like £134 less for the intel amd combination.

#TRIEDTOFIXITBEFOREYOUPOSTED In additon, the Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 is a good $70 less than the equivalent Intel Z87 Sabertooth Board.

 

[Cazalan]

A 40% faster clock per clock

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

It was faster in everything except Whet (double-precision) where it was about half as fast. That however was a Sandy i3, not Ivy or Haswell.

I guess those are the time honored classic benchmarks but they don't apply much to real world application benchmarks. Even after this long it's been difficult to find many Kabini reviews.

 

[gamerk316]

Of course single core performance is still important, no one is debating that If single core performance wasn't important AMD wouldn't be working so hard to increase single core performance with Steamroller. All that others are trying to point out is the future games, using Crysis 3 as a first generation "blueprint" for how a game is made, will have to have good single core execution and the ability to run multiple cores and threads. Crysis 3 as a first generation type game utilizes 9 threads heavily, what will happen when games are optimized even more for multi-thread use? Games using 10, 12, 16 threads? How will a dual core 4 thread or even a quad core 8 thread machine hold up then?

Why would you want to? The CPU isn't the bottleneck, so adding more threads just for the sake of adding more threads will SLOW execution somewhat. Wheres the performance benefit?

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

My point is this...

8350 + HD 7970 GHz > 4670k + HD 7870 for the same money.

You made your spiel about perf/watt...I made my point about perf/$.

Perf/$ > perf/watt to a great majority here...that's why your point has not been taken seriously at all.

/rant

Which system looks like a better build?

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faOi
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faOi/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faOi/benchmarks/

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($179.99 @ Microcenter)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ Outlet PC)
Motherboard: Asus SABERTOOTH 990FX/GEN3 R2.0 ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($199.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($69.98 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Corsair Force Series GT 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB Video Card ($389.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Zalman Z12 Plus ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: PC Power & Cooling Silencer Mk III 750W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1236.88
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-10 10:39 EDT-0400)

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faQh
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faQh/by_merchant/
Benchmarks: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1faQh/benchmarks/

CPU: Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($329.97 @ OutletPC)
CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler ($29.98 @ Outlet PC)
Motherboard: Asus Z87-PLUS ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($149.99 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($69.98 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: XFX Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB Video Card ($389.99 @ NCIX US)
Case: Zalman Z12 Plus ATX Mid Tower Case ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: PC Power & Cooling Silencer Mk III 750W 80 PLUS Gold Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($99.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Asus DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $1156.89
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-07-10 10:41 EDT-0400)

#AMD Build, due to the SSD, superior motherboard and my love for PGA :3
Equivalent Intel Rig: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1fb2D

 

[hcl123]

Wow!... 107 pages.. and so many garbage

Perhaps went the "marketing departments" go to sleep this thread may get back to topic and attract some "experts" ( its in the title).

So many seem glad to *WORK FOR FREE* promoting a "lady" that in their ignorance think its theirs(edt)... i OTOH would feel like a complete imbecile even if i state publicly what system i'm using... when IF the *VENDORS PAY ME* i'll do it (pay me well LOL ).

One example of ignorance... there is a reason why "game console" IDMs are able to extract sometimes 10x the performance of their hardware compared with the *super-bloated* PC world (average for a game is much less than that, but quite higher nonetheless)... so when comparing this "games" to have a "clew", you have to compare with nvidia drivers and AMD drivers, that is, you got to compare s system with a Radeon and similar system with Geforce... PC world is so bloated in the graphics department that is not funny, drivers count a lot... otherwise only serves to fill pages with garbage.

 

[abitoms]

...

/rant

Which system looks like a better build?

...

CPU: AMD FX-8350 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor ($179.99 @ Microcenter)
...
Storage: Corsair Force Series GT 120GB 2.5" Solid State Disk ($129.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
...
Total: $1236.88
...



CPU: Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor ($329.97 @ OutletPC)
...
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
...
Total: $1156.89
.....

Any particular reason you did not buy the $130 SSD with the Intel build? If you include that with the Intel build, it becomes $1285 and comes out costlier than the AMD build by about $50.

I don't question the $50 costlier motherboard you have for the AMD build since motherboards are beyond my IQ

 

[Cazalan]

As long as Kaveri shows better performance than Piledriver APUs in CPU benchmarks, we will able to get at least a good idea of how much better the FX line will be as well. That's all I care about - to see SR improvements (even if it's for APUs) - to keep me waiting for a Steamroller FX release instead of going Intel route (1055T is still good enough for now).

As much as I'd like to see a Steamroller FX it is in AMD's best interest to stick to the APUs. The demand is much greater and thus more profitable for them. Intel seems to only update their higher end chips every other year. AMD could do the same with FX to save money.

A 5Bil company can only do so much to compete with a 100Bil company. Executing a few products well is more important than spreading too thin trying to compete in every segment.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

8350rocks just seen both builds and intel machine even with the higher cost cpu is cheaper. Yes the amd system got an ssd but the intel system is amazingly cheaper. People forget intel motherboards don't cost much. Even with ssd $50 is the difference. $50 is less then 5% of the total cost of the machine. So what you posted makes no sense to get an fx8350 machine as it costs like £20-£30 a year more to run.

Care to look at my updated one? Remember that the AMD is using a far superior motherboard.
Update 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4et7kDGSRfc#t=597s