AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

Page 212 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790
I also love the idea of a 6C kaveri APU. It was in the original AMD roadmaps, and then eliminated from the current roadmap. I hope that it will reappear latter, maybe next year.

According to my own estimations (assuming about a 30% increase in performance over Piledriver) a 6C Steamroller chip would compete with a 3770k/4770k (4 cores + HT) in raw CPU.

However, the true advance of kaveri comes with HSA being fully enabled. The total performance available to the 4C APU is of about 1.05 TFLOPs. For the sake of comparison the total performance of the 4770k is of 848 GFLOPs.

It is very difficult to estimate total HSA performance of a 6C APU. But assuming perfect scaling, it would be close to 1.5 TFLOPs.
 

rmpumper

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
459
0
18,810


Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, but they choose a cheaper and slower AMD CPU? Don't follow your logic. Either you don't have the money for Intel and get AMD, o you are a "heavy PC user" and get Intel because it is faster and in the long run will save you the price difference in electricity bills.
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


This is a Myth...I did the math, at $0.11 kw/hr (my electric rate), it would take me close to 10 years using the PC @ max load for 6 hours/day 365 days/yr to get back the initial cost difference between the 3770k @ $309 and the FX 8350 @ $179.

You would never save the money by buying Intel...it doesn't "pay for itself"...no one will use the same CPU for a decade on that scale either...so real world numbers if 5 years down the road that PC became a backup...you'd have to likely use it close to 2 decades at half usage for the last 15 years...it's not feasible to assume anyone would keep the same system for 10 years...much less 20, even as a backup.

Just out of curiousity...anyone still have a Mac from 1993 still seeing 3 hours usage a day? No...? How about an IBM System? No 486 66MHz users left around? Hmm...

EDIT: As an aside note:

HD 9970 due in October to coincide with new bundle and BF4 Launch:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Radeon-HD-9000-Graphics-Series-Set-for-October-Release-366417.shtml?utm_source=ForumSoftpedia&utm_medium=ForumSoftpedia&utm_campaign=ForumSoftpedia

http://us.hardware.info/news/35914/amd-radeon-hd-9000-series-this-october
 


+1, also Hajifur, consoles extract far more out of their hardware than a equivalent PC, do you think a 7800GTX or X1900XT would stand a chance at running Crysis 3? The consoles will (very likely) be able to outrun a high-endish i7 PC in terms of lifespan of running these games smoothly. The i7 system, maybe 3-5 years, the console(s), at least six years. Do not underestimate the Jaguar APU simply because of a low clockrate as it has plenty of secrets under the hood.
 

Power means nothing to the high-end PC user IN GENERAL, from the 920 to a FX8350 to the 3770K, those are all CPUs meant for the high end consumer markets for whatever time period they were released in. The FX8350 excels in certain tasks, the 3770K/4770K in others, I simply prefer the 8350. If you are doing intense tasks, that is the Xeon's and Opteron's job. As pointed out in several posts today, the "Intel will save you in the long run with electricity" myth is debunked.

 


Honestly I am tired of dealing with your nonsense, we really need to deport you back to troll land. When the 8350 can demolish a 3960X in certain multithreaded tasks, the Mobile i7 will need a LOT to catch up. If you are so crazy on power, like some Intel fanboys, why don't you petition for a Mobile PGA to LGA 1150 adapter? :lol:

Seriously, just shut up about this, it is getting us AMD speculation threaders damn tired. The 8350 will require an immense amount of time @250W load to even meet the 4770K's initial price, and the 4770K costs money to operate, too. By the time it even meets the 4770K's initial price, both will be long outdated. Listen to answers, this is an AMD THREAD, SHUT UP ABOUT INTEL BEING SUPERIOR OR CONTRIBUTE IN A WAY OTHER THAN SAYING "ERMEHGOD DERP HURR HERR DURP INTEL IS WAY BETTER IN PERFORMANCE PER WATT AMD WILL RIP YOU OFF WITH POWER HURR DERR DURP" and talk about AMD Steamroller rumors, not "Intel being superior".
 

When a Q9650@3.9 can handle a GTX 680 just fine, I am pretty sure a 8-Core jaguar CPU will handle a 7860-ish GPU just fine.
 


*Sigh* Understand that AMD is better than Intel in some tasks and that Intel is better than AMD in other tasks, there is no need to rant about "Intel being superior". Talk about AMD's developments, there will be Intel mentioned sometimes and Haswell is lacking in the Desktop, even andandtech call it a "joke", and there is some stuff that AMD is just better at, stop making excuses that X thing was biased or that X thing on the Intel system was purposely hampered. Also, >implying Opteron has not already beaten the 3960X in those tasks. AND PLEASE, JUST STOP making a fool of yourself with power costs. 30-45W TDP CPU trololololololololololololololololol, must I bring out our little friend, also known as the 3820?
 

cowboy44mag

Guest
Jan 24, 2013
315
0
10,810
hafijur here's the deal plain and simple. This is an AMD thread, its not an Intel thread. I know that Intel fanboys truly believe that any thread on the internet that deals with processors should be exclusive to Intel processors, but sorry. You don't like it, and it riles you up, go to one of the many, many Intel fanboy threads and let the other "small man syndrome" guys there stroke your ego, you won't get that here.

There are two main communities in processors: Intel fanboys and AMD fanboys. The Intel fanboy club loves to talk about performance per watt (as if electricity is really difficult to come by) and single core performance. The AMD fanboy club likes to talk about price for performance and overclockability (sorry Intel, but AMD does overclock better). The thing is this, which fan club is happier right now? The AMD fan club. Haswell is not the huge improvement Intel was promising its fans, and the FX 8350 isn't doing that bad vs the i7 4770K. There are benchmark scores all over the place, most have the i7 4770K edging the FX 8350, but its not a slaying like Intel fanboys want everyone to believe. And there are even a few benchmarks where the FX 8350 does better than the i7 4770K. That is what has the Intel fanboys so ticked off right now, the Haswell i7 isn't unbeatable.

AMD fanboys are happy as their FX 8350s are fairing well and at a much better price. What has the Intel fanboy club scared (and why they are all over the place over-hyping the i7 Haswell) is Steamroller is just around the corner and poised to rectify AMDs largest shortcoming - single core execution. If Steamroller FX has a marked improvement in single core execution and continues its improve on its impressive multi-core performance (seen in FX 8350).... All of a sudden those expensive i7 Haswell 4770K are going to look how good? Considering FX 8350 isn't that far behind the 4770K. Intel fans like to make it sound as if FX 8350 is as far behind as my Phenom II 965 BE vs the i7 4770K and its just not true.
 


people would buy consoles for the game they want to play. Raw FLOPs is pointless. Why would anyone buy a ds when they could buy a psp?
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860


what cracks me up is your so bent on power consumption until thats out of the picutre then its all about raw power. 8350 has intel beat on power draw against the 3960x hands down.

power.png


but your blind ambition to try and put intel in the limelight is as stupid as your constan't PPW PPW PPW ... oh not ppw when its the 3960x.

pew_pew_pew_merica-155016.jpg


The only intel igp that is 2x as fast as IB is iris ... where is the power draw? http://techreport.com/review/24954/amd-a10-6800k-and-a10-6700-richland-apus-reviewed/4

its not posted what the IGP draws, but funny that the 4950HQ draws more power than the 4770k on cpu tests without stressing the IGP

idle power consumption on IRIS IS WORSE THAN IVY BRIDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
power-idle.gif


quit mixing the results to try and support your blind ambition. 4770k uses less power but iris pro is 2x as fast ... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME CPU period. end of story.

go take your arguement to the ivy bridge thrad and go away, seriously, unplug your laptop and use it without power forever since it sooo efficient.
 

Cazalan

Distinguished
Sep 4, 2011
2,672
0
20,810
Having run a home computer lab that would trip a 15A circuit in the summer, I agree that power consumption has some merit, but it's just one factor of many. I had to shut down my F@H farm when it hit $450/month in electric bills. For a 1-3 computer home it's not much issue.

It's always going to come down to personal preference and budget.
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


I hope you have a recipe for crow, cause you're about to be eating it:

http://openbenchmarking.org/prospect/1305170-UT-LLVMCLANG75/fd501a41a2adcc643acc832de94444f9fd7d9678

EDIT: It isn't by a little bit either...the 8350 is like 700% faster...
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


They were tested on equal footing, that is PHORONIX, after all. Frankly, all I want to hear out of you is how good that crow smells cooking in your kitchen while your electric stove uses more Watts in an hour than the 8350 would in a year...

EDIT: Knowing you, you'll cook it on a hibachi on your patio using charcoal briquettes and take 12 hours to cook that crow rather than use the 3000W your 240V electric stove would burn to cook it in an hour.
 

GOM3RPLY3R

Honorable
Mar 16, 2013
658
0
11,010


I'm giving out the true information that hafijur is not giving. He claimed that it would take 500-600 Watts, obviously he is wrong, so to "shut him up" like you like to do with me, I have him charts, like you do with me. I did not jump off the Intel pedestal, I'm just helping more with AMD since they are a viable opponent, and deserve bragging rights for mobile devices (laptops and smaller PCs), and consoles. However, I would like to inform you, nothing will really hurt me with my new 3930k, so don't try.
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


Postgre SQL is raw number crunching...it's a direct correlation of integer crunching capability.

MMMmmmmmmmm....Bet that crow is tasty!!!
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


LOL...well...for $500 + $250 MB, I should hope not...haha!
 

blackkstar

Honorable
Sep 30, 2012
468
0
10,780
So, I've been waiting for a few pages for someone to explain why power consumption on a desktop is significant. Even if we take the very high and inaccurate estimation of $20 a year more to run an AMD, it is a little under 6 cents a day when you break it down.

Is anyone going to explain to me why power consumption is important in a desktop? I am really anxious to hear why it is a big deal.
 

GOM3RPLY3R

Honorable
Mar 16, 2013
658
0
11,010


Hahaha, wow 8350, it seems you need to go back to school:

1. No specific memory model was mentioned, along with no specifications, like speed and per stick size.

2. Different GPUs were used, you may not think, but they can make a difference.

3. Disks are different models completely and different sizes.

4. COMEPLTELY different motherboard brands, at least keep them the same brand.

5. ONLY used the Radeon display driver, why not try an Nvidia? or maybe something else that you can find?

6. different OpenGL Mesas were used.

Me and you know that benchmarks are science experiments, and as I and the United States Education System says, ALL variables in an experiment MUST be the same EXCEPT for ONLY the TESTING MATERIAL (CPU).

And I like how you ONLY put one test of the other 20 tests up. about 70% of the test was won or dominated by Intel, and the 3970X won 40% of that. You forgot really about GraphicsMagick as well.

And you're telling me that I'M giving invalid information? Please, try again with the correct response.
 

GOM3RPLY3R

Honorable
Mar 16, 2013
658
0
11,010


It shows if the CPU is more powerful with less power, which is a plus. It can also mean the difference between getting say a 850 Watt PSU vs. a 900 Watt PSU. It's minor, however, this is also a big deal since it can affect or be affected by what motherboard or type of PSU you use.
 

cowboy44mag

Guest
Jan 24, 2013
315
0
10,810


8350- I wouldn't even waste any more effort with this guy. It is clear that he is a total Intel fanboy, and like all Intel fanboys can't believe that an FX 8350 can beat an i7 in ANY benchmark. Intel fanboys are why I would really love to Steamroller come out on totally equal ground vs i7 Haswell in performance and benchmarks. Intel trys to control the information to make their product look better. Not unlike a dictatorship, if the only news you get is gov't approved and they tell you what the gov't wants you to believe you are going to believe it. Intel uses biased benchmarks and review sites to try to control the market. Crysis 3 benchmarks kind of blow the doors off that though as the FX 8350 isn't that far behind the i7 (and in some Crysis 3 benchmarks I've seen beats the i7), and outright beats the i5. Real world benchmarks, like the Crysis 3 benchmarks are what people should be looking out, not synthetic benchmarks designed to give an edge to Intel.
 

8350rocks

Distinguished


He said the 8350 would not win in 1 benchmark...I proved him wrong.

Even if you slant it 100% toward intel and gave AMD the worst of everything and gave the 3960x the best possible scenario...say it improves 200%, and AMD loses 25% performance...the 8350 would still be 80% faster.

Think about that...if Intel was 3x better at that benchmark, and AMD was 3/4 as effective...the 8350 would still be nearly double the effectiveness...

Additionally...those old GPUs used don't have compute functions, so they are a non-factor for integer performance. Additionally, the only things that matter, would be the HDD, and both systems had the same SSDs, both ran the same Linux Ubuntu 13.04 OS...

Across an entire benchmark suite you might have a point, but this test is pure integer performance...which is done exclusively by the CPU.
 

jdwii

Splendid


+1
 

juanrga

Distinguished
BANNED
Mar 19, 2013
5,278
0
17,790


Nope. Intel is essentially a very inefficient business. They need both higher volume and higher prices to maintain their inefficient structures (R&D, fabs...) They achieve that goal by cheating ill-informed guys as you and charging them higher prices for silicon that does not deserves the price. Intel tactics to cheat include biased review sites, misguided marketing, fake benchmarks, and many other malicious practices abundantly reported in many places. Intel is now being investigated in India for violating fair competition laws.



More nonsense. Precisely one of the reason why Sony and Microsoft chose AMD was because other chipmakers could not provide the needed cpu performance.



This is plain false and was addressed before. But you can continue ignoring facts and benchmarks...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.