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.
Either way, it will still be less than the 4770K, myth busted. Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, it is nothing compared to the cost of your fridge or A/C.
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.
Either way, it will still be less than the 4770K, myth busted. Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, it is nothing compared to the cost of your fridge or A/C.
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.
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:
Either way, it will still be less than the 4770K, myth busted. Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, it is nothing compared to the cost of your fridge or A/C.
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.
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.
EDIT: 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...
+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.
Either way, it will still be less than the 4770K, myth busted. Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, it is nothing compared to the cost of your fridge or A/C.
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.
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.
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
Either way, it will still be less than the 4770K, myth busted. Power is nothing for the heavy PC user, it is nothing compared to the cost of your fridge or A/C.
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.
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.
EDIT: 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...
+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.
Thats because of the cell cpu. The graphics card is so bad and the ram in the ps3 that game makers troll it like kazunori Yamauchi. Most of the work is done on the cell cpu. In fact some games don't even think of using these graphics card as a lot of the graphics is done using the cell cpu. Its quite funny the last consoles had okayish cpu low end gpus at the time as newer nvidia 8000 series came out when the ps3 was launched but they used the 7000 series. Now these new consoles will have low end cpu and high end gpu. The ps3 games mainly rely on the ps3 cell cpu but the ps4 mainly will use the gpu, no wonder why sony decided to use the amd apu as they don't need cpu power, just enough cores to run different tasks.
I am seriously thinking game developers will struggle to get playable framerates with the new consoles due to the cpu, they even got accelerators to help the cpu. Sony and microsoft have done a big gamble imo, releasing a cpu thats low end with a decent gpu is always dangerous game to play. I like how they say they catered for developers with 8 cores when the cell had like 8 threads. Remember they are using x86 architecture so it will perform like a normal pc so in that sense its not futureproof as the previous consoles had high cpu bandwidth for cpu only.
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.
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.
*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?
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.
Interesting little tidbit for those following the new consoles: It appears that of the XB1s 8GB of RAM, only 5GB will be guaranteed for developer use, the rest reserved for the OS (probably due to the task switching, if I had to guess). And at least one dev (Respawn [Titanfall]) is complaining about this constraint.
This constraint would also lead me to believe that its unlikely we'll see a major shift toward 64-bit native titles this generation, as you can use a PC's HDD/paging to work within the 32-bit 4GB Address Space limit. Still. this would indicate that HDD's might become a performance bottleneck this generation...
That is pretty sad i still can't understand microsoft fans why would anyone buy a Xbox 1? A PS4 i understand its a good value system and its cheaper and more powerful then a Xbox 1 and you WILL be able to notice in most games since its GPU has 50% more resources and 2.5 times more bandwidth.
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?
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.
edit: Most mobile intel i7 mobile cpus from sandy bridge ivy bridge or haswell once turbo'd beat the fx8350. You have to remember the i7 3770k takes like 45w for the cpu and igpu is like the rest of the tdp rating. If intel rated there tdps like amd for cpu only as amd fx don't have igpu they could easily have ratted the i3 3220 at 20w and the i5 3570k at like 30w and the 3770k at 45w.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.
edit: Most mobile intel i7 mobile cpus from sandy bridge ivy bridge or haswell once turbo'd beat the fx8350. You have to remember the i7 3770k takes like 45w for the cpu and igpu is like the rest of the tdp rating. If intel rated there tdps like amd for cpu only as amd fx don't have igpu they could easily have ratted the i3 3220 at 20w and the i5 3570k at like 30w and the 3770k at 45w.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
I hope you have a recipe for crow, cause you're about to be eating it:
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.
edit: Most mobile intel i7 mobile cpus from sandy bridge ivy bridge or haswell once turbo'd beat the fx8350. You have to remember the i7 3770k takes like 45w for the cpu and igpu is like the rest of the tdp rating. If intel rated there tdps like amd for cpu only as amd fx don't have igpu they could easily have ratted the i3 3220 at 20w and the i5 3570k at like 30w and the 3770k at 45w.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
I hope you have a recipe for crow, cause you're about to be eating it:
EDIT: It isn't by a little bit either...the 8350 is like 700% faster...
lol, you gave that benchmark again. I here you say you are a game developer or something like that but give this nonsense out many times really believing it is 7x faster. You gave that benchmark again, the fx8350 has ssd, the i3 3217u which beats the i7 3960x has a hdd with msata ssd I believe and the i7 3960x is tested with a normal hdd. So put in a very fast ssd, a top of the line one and you could destroy the ssd used with the the fx8350.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL...well...for $500 + $250 MB, I should hope not...haha!
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.
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.
edit: Most mobile intel i7 mobile cpus from sandy bridge ivy bridge or haswell once turbo'd beat the fx8350. You have to remember the i7 3770k takes like 45w for the cpu and igpu is like the rest of the tdp rating. If intel rated there tdps like amd for cpu only as amd fx don't have igpu they could easily have ratted the i3 3220 at 20w and the i5 3570k at like 30w and the 3770k at 45w.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
I hope you have a recipe for crow, cause you're about to be eating it:
EDIT: It isn't by a little bit either...the 8350 is like 700% faster...
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.
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.
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.
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.
edit: Most mobile intel i7 mobile cpus from sandy bridge ivy bridge or haswell once turbo'd beat the fx8350. You have to remember the i7 3770k takes like 45w for the cpu and igpu is like the rest of the tdp rating. If intel rated there tdps like amd for cpu only as amd fx don't have igpu they could easily have ratted the i3 3220 at 20w and the i5 3570k at like 30w and the 3770k at 45w.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
I hope you have a recipe for crow, cause you're about to be eating it:
EDIT: It isn't by a little bit either...the 8350 is like 700% faster...
lol, you gave that benchmark again. I here you say you are a game developer or something like that but give this nonsense out many times really believing it is 7x faster. You gave that benchmark again, the fx8350 has ssd, the i3 3217u which beats the i7 3960x has a hdd with msata ssd I believe and the i7 3960x is tested with a normal hdd. So put in a very fast ssd, a top of the line one and you could destroy the ssd used with the the fx8350.
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.
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.
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
People like you rile me up thats why. No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power. In fact I think you have been brainwashed by 8350rocks who shows an amd fx8350 with an ssd up against a hdd and something like the i7 3960x. Notice on that same thing he kept posting an i3 3217u or something like that beats the 3960x as it is hdd based. In fact I am so sure that amd won't beat the 3960x at anything stock vs stock it probably be until 2016 until amd reach that level at a 220w power envelope like the centurion.
edit: Most mobile intel i7 mobile cpus from sandy bridge ivy bridge or haswell once turbo'd beat the fx8350. You have to remember the i7 3770k takes like 45w for the cpu and igpu is like the rest of the tdp rating. If intel rated there tdps like amd for cpu only as amd fx don't have igpu they could easily have ratted the i3 3220 at 20w and the i5 3570k at like 30w and the 3770k at 45w.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
I hope you have a recipe for crow, cause you're about to be eating it:
EDIT: It isn't by a little bit either...the 8350 is like 700% faster...
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.
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.
The 3570k is more compareable to the fx8350. Its quite funny though that there is like 15 intel laptop cpus faster then the 3570k. If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less but instead since sandy bridge they have been producing there top end tier 4 core cpus that are designed for laptops and selling higher base clock versions in desktops. The i7 4765t might be as fast as the fx8350 on multithreaded tasks and it is only 35w.
Theres a reason why intel slowest ivy bridge i5 ulv which is the 3317u I have is faster then amds fastest mobile cpu as they are limited by power.
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".
If amd were more competitive intel would have had to charge less
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.
hafijur :
no wonder why sony decided to use the amd apu as they don't need cpu power, just enough cores to run different tasks.
More nonsense. Precisely one of the reason why Sony and Microsoft chose AMD was because other chipmakers could not provide the needed cpu performance.
hafijur :
No AMD cpu multithreaded 100% cpu test will beat the i7 3960x at anything that requires 100% cpu power.
This is plain false and was addressed before. But you can continue ignoring facts and benchmarks...