AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[juanrga]

@juan

AGAIN LOL,

In multithreaded integer workloads, the Z3770 gets dangerously close to Ivy Bridge levels of performance. Again, we're overstating Bay Trail's performance here as the Z3770 has four cores while the Core i5-3317U only has two (but with Hyper Threading presenting another 2 virtual cores). I don't believe most tablet workloads are heavily threaded integer workloads, however the world is hardly single threaded anymore. The reality is that a quad-core Bay Trail should perform somewhere between 40% - 80% of a dual-core Ivy Bridge

wow, thats impressive you only took the first sentence and tried to defend yourself. 4 cores to equal 40-80% of a dual core Ivy bridge .... you fail miserably.

Thats funny, looking at that same test, AMD >>> Ivy bridge

you can continue to anxiously wait for your mediocre performance - non compliant products all you want.

I can also see you bought intel's new SDP gimmick for cpu power ... 2 watts SDP != 2W TDP

LOL. I avoided the part I was sure would confuse you... and your reply confirms that my suspicion was right.

What you continue without understanding is that they are testing a phone-level chip. Aka the chip is thermally constrained to fit inside a phone. That phone-level chip is offering a 40-80% of the performance of an i5/i7 laptop chip, but is consuming only 1W-2.5W.

Nobody mentioned SDPs or TDPs. You are again making up things in your brain. The phone chip was consuming a maximum of 2.5W during those tests (and ~700mW at iddle). I can sure you that the Ivy Bridge chips used in that comparison consume much much much more than 2.5W. The conclusion is evident the new Silvermont architecture is much much more efficient than Ivy Bridge.

If the phone-level chip was scaled up to something as 8W, it would be faster than the Ivy Bridge chips in raw performance, but guess what? Then it couldn't be used inside a phone.

The funny part is that the new Silvermont architecture by Intel has retained the crowd only during one week! Apple has just released its new phone chip and has humiliated Intel

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/6

A dual-core ARM64 @ 1.3Ghz is offering about the same raw performance than a (Kabini) quad-core jaguar @ 1.5GHz. And don't miss that the Apple chip is thermally constrained to phone-level (single digit power consumption).

 

[juanrga]

Juangra this is an embarrassing estimation:
http://juanrga.com/en/AMD-kaveri-benchmark.html
AMD on target steamroller wise 4 core means the i5 ivy bridge would still be about 50% faster at the the very least.

Embarrassing for you? Agree.

 

[juanrga]

Nope a 6 core steamroller version would be at the i7-3770k level

 

[8350rocks]

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2013/04/10/PC-sales-in-free-fall/UPI-82731365637852/

That exactly misses the point I'm trying to make.

If Gaming PCs make up 25% of all those rigs, and they increased by 10% (to 27.5%), and the rest of the 75% of DT dropped by 30%, it would still make DT numbers look worse even though gaming DT numbers are growing. It is kind of a BS propaganda number, like as I said before, could be used to convince people that gaming PCs and such are on the decline.

This agenda does not surprise me as Intel wants to kill overclocking, dGPUs, gimps "unlocked" chips by disabling features, places what they call the enthusiast platform's cost way above what most gaming PC people spend, etc.

As for ARM moving into DT market, uhhhh why does ARM and ARM CPU vendors want into DT market if it's dying like Intel and stuff keep saying? Nvidia wants to rush into the dying market? So they can play Crysis 3 and BF4 on their ARM CPUs?

ARM CPU has a massive hurdle to overcome, even if it is faster it's going to isolate a lot of folks because it won't have software for it. If it is just as fast as an i5, who cares if it can't run Photoshop?

And what OS will they put on it? Linux? Windows RT? There are major hurdles. I can see it doing very well in servers powered by Linux, and I'm sure MS will want to get in on it too, but for consumers we will still need x86. And trust, me, I think x86 is an abomination. I did x86, SPARC, and MIPS assembly in college and we started with x86. After going to SPARC I was wondering what the hell anyone was thinking making x86. It felt like a gigantic mess of just throwing stuff on top of more stuff on top of more stuff.

I don't have any data that shows that Gaming PCs (I mean gaming oriented desktops) are increasing whereas the rest of desktop drops. Do you? At the best, I can concede you that gaming on a pc has been raising and will continue to rise for next years. But most of that gaming on a pc is made in ordinary laptops, not in a dedicated desktop gaming, not even in dedicated gaming laptops.

ARM is not focusing in a dying market such as the DT, because makes no sense. ARM is moving to servers and HPCs. But once that you have a chip to run in a high-performance server or a supercomputer, you can use that chip for the desktop as well. It is a welcomed bonus.

Regarding Crysis 3 BF4, as I already said ARM was close to be inside the current PS4/XboxOne. I am convinced that next gen consoles will be ARM.

Once Apple was switching to ARM, all its software/ecosystem will switch as well. GIMP already runs on ARM. Photoshop could run as well if there is market.

Windows is dying as well. AMD did break exclusivity with Microsoft, and this week, Intel announced the same. Intel is joining with Google now. The only player who believes on RT is Nvidia and I believe that they are making a huge mistake. The future is linux. Gaming will be made under linux. Valve is about to present their gaming PC/console and it will use linux:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/16/valve-ceo-gabe-newell-says-linux-is-the-future-of-gaming-hints-at-steambox-announcement/

Yes ARM assembly is simpler and elegant than x86.

http://www.webpronews.com/as-pcs-tank-gaming-hardware-sales-are-steady-2013-08

Dr. John Peddie (Ph.D.) has a research company that shows gaming PCs are on the rise, dramatically.

As you so often say, Google is your friend.

 

[8350rocks]

@juan

AGAIN LOL,

In multithreaded integer workloads, the Z3770 gets dangerously close to Ivy Bridge levels of performance. Again, we're overstating Bay Trail's performance here as the Z3770 has four cores while the Core i5-3317U only has two (but with Hyper Threading presenting another 2 virtual cores). I don't believe most tablet workloads are heavily threaded integer workloads, however the world is hardly single threaded anymore. The reality is that a quad-core Bay Trail should perform somewhere between 40% - 80% of a dual-core Ivy Bridge

wow, thats impressive you only took the first sentence and tried to defend yourself. 4 cores to equal 40-80% of a dual core Ivy bridge .... you fail miserably.

Thats funny, looking at that same test, AMD >>> Ivy bridge

you can continue to anxiously wait for your mediocre performance - non compliant products all you want.

I can also see you bought intel's new SDP gimmick for cpu power ... 2 watts SDP != 2W TDP

LOL. I avoided the part I was sure would confuse you... and your reply confirms that my suspicion was right.

What you continue without understanding is that they are testing a phone-level chip. Aka the chip is thermally constrained to fit inside a phone. That phone-level chip is offering a 40-80% of the performance of an i5/i7 laptop chip, but is consuming only 1W-2.5W.

Nobody mentioned SDPs or TDPs. You are again making up things in your brain. The phone chip was consuming a maximum of 2.5W during those tests (and ~700mW at iddle). I can sure you that the Ivy Bridge chips used in that comparison consume much much much more than 2.5W. The conclusion is evident the new Silvermont architecture is much much more efficient than Ivy Bridge.

If the phone-level chip was scaled up to something as 8W, it would be faster than the Ivy Bridge chips in raw performance, but guess what? Then it couldn't be used inside a phone.

The funny part is that the new Silvermont architecture by Intel has retained the crowd only during one week! Apple has just released its new phone chip and has humiliated Intel

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/6

A dual-core ARM64 @ 1.3Ghz is offering about the same raw performance than a (Kabini) quad-core jaguar @ 1.5GHz. And don't miss that the Apple chip is thermally constrained to phone-level (single digit power consumption).

If you're referring to the chart where the iphone 5s is running iOS (mobile OS) vs. the A4-5000 running winblows 8...you're seriously misunderstanding the reference.

Winblows 8 or RT on that iphone 5s would slow it down dramatically. A mobile OS is much less convoluted than a full blown desktop OS...it has to be. Because ARM CPUs in mobile phones cannot run a full blown desktop OS very fast, they don't have the raw compute power.

Now that I've straightened out that mess, go back to the drawing board and draw some wrong conclusions from another presentation.

That slide from AT is simply there as a comparison of unlike architectures to show relative performance to what your laptop might have. It's far from a be all end all comparison.

The A7 isn't that great...is it a step forward for ARM? Sure, and Apple as well. However, keep in mind...the man who designed that chip now wears an AMD hat, or have you forgotten that the A7 was JK's last project at Apple?

As someone pointed out quite a while back, when JK left, the silicon renaissance at Apple ended.

 

[8350rocks]

Intel doesn't make much money to start with. Its once it has sold lots it starts to make money. AMD doesn't spend much on fabs while intel spend bn's of $. Now not only that intel spend much more in r&d. Once it starts selling lots of units thats when the profits start coming in. If a product doesn't sell well then intel could be losing a lot of money. I think it will take longer and longer to go down nm's if pc sales are down as theres no point intel releasing products that don't sell much then releasing newer ones as. Also what people forget is intel cpus are very good value for money for what you get as you get an igpu great all round performance modern platform. AMD have ancient design memory controller, still on 32nm, very poor single threaded performance. While amd top end cpus have similar transitors to intel 4 core cpus but the fact is amd are not amazing value for money people think it is as intel spend much more money on making there cpus then amd ansd you can say they sell a lot more but they spend more on r&d deliver better products for just a little bit more money.

I reckon a 6 core steamroller 4ghz cpu that gets similar performance to an i7 4770k will cost about £250-£300. AMD are pricing there products to how much its value is, thats why intel sell well and amd do as well as you get what you pay for and value for money intel has the edge but not everyone can afford the extra £50-£100 for better motherboard and cpu upfront.

Juangra this is an embarrassing estimation:
http://juanrga.com/en/AMD-kaveri-benchmark.html
AMD on target steamroller wise 4 core means the i5 ivy bridge would still be about 50% faster at the the very least.

You are deluded. Intel makes lots of money...they wouldn't be nearly as big as they were if they didn't.

Additionally, Intel charges a premium for their CPUs because it says "Intel Inside" on the PC Case when an OEM puts it in there, and people think that's a premium product. When reality shows otherwise.

AMD is not nearly as far behind Intel as you think. 5 FPS difference on a 50 FPS benchmark is 10% now. Intel just improved a whopping 5% with hasfail...meaning AMD might be 15% behind on Intel's best day. So a 20-30% improvement with Steamroller cores would put them right where Intel is, or, perhaps, even slightly better.

So go talk about Intel elsewhere. The numbers show you lie.

BTW: Don't bother rolling out archaic x87 benchmarks from 15 years ago to talk about IPC again, that argument holds less water than a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

 

[griptwister]

Go home hafijur, you're drunk!

Annnndddd loook!!!! Turns out us so called "AMD fanbois" were right!

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/xbox-one-ps4-amd-apu-pc-gaming,24295.html

"When consoles are first launched, games are first developed on console and then ported to PC," he added. "Because it's our architecture there, it's easier to port the games. And because they're first developed on our hardware, there should be a performance advantage. They should run better on our hardware. So if we can create that performance advantage on the PC, from a graphics point of view, then we can give our customers a better gaming experience and grow our market share."

 

[blackkstar]

You are deluded. Intel makes lots of money...they wouldn't be nearly as big as they were if they didn't.

Additionally, Intel charges a premium for their CPUs because it says "Intel Inside" on the PC Case when an OEM puts it in there, and people think that's a premium product. When reality shows otherwise.

AMD is not nearly as far behind Intel as you think. 5 FPS difference on a 50 FPS benchmark is 10% now. Intel just improved a whopping 5% with hasfail...meaning AMD might be 15% behind on Intel's best day. So a 20-30% improvement with Steamroller cores would put them right where Intel is, or, perhaps, even slightly better.

So go talk about Intel elsewhere. The numbers show you lie.

BTW: Don't bother rolling out archaic x87 benchmarks from 15 years ago to talk about IPC again, that argument holds less water than a bucket with a hole in the bottom.

Intel are ahead of any company on nm for cpu design. I think intel are a bargain they are selling amazing stuff, which will take amd another 4-5 years to get to haswell level and you get an igpu cutting edge technology. Its a bit like saying why not buy a cheap and nasty tuned up £100,000 car that can beat probably a £1m bugatti veyron. Anyway what you get for £30 more is similar multithreaded performance double ipc a 1000+ 3dmark11 igpu 22nm trigate cpu years of effort gone in to this, much cheaper electricity bills and better gaming performance making your lower end gpu more futureproof then an amd fx cpu with a slightly higher end card. Ancient memory controller and speeds for cache in fx cpu.

To be honest because of how bad piledriver is amd are making losses. I think this is intels biggest lead over amd ever since amd emerged. AMD steamroller will at least make intels big lead and igpu offering and big single threaded performance and gaming cpu performance lead less.

How I see it if you can't afford a new pc with an intel cpu get amd but if you can afford an intel cpu system theres no reason to get amd at the moment.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/mannerisms/general/the-intel-nanometre-2013-02/

Intel is not as far ahead as you think it is. 22nm is more like 26nm if you were to measure it by the same rules as the rest of the industry measures it.

You can choose calling Intel 22nm ~26nm or you can choose calling TSMC 28nm more like ~24nm and GloFo 32nm more like 26nm.

The gap is not as large as you would think, buddy. Unless you plan on fighting the entire chip fabrication industry that Intel is cheating by using evidence provided by Intel.

EDIT: and yes, thanks for providing the sources that gaming PCs are on the rise. It just took a simple 5 second google search to find thousands of sources, even a source from AMD itself, that gaming PC is doing fantastic.

There is substantial evidence behind my theory that gaming PC is growing, but it's growing slower than traditional DT is shrinking and the DT numbers are lumping gaming DT and traditional DT together to make gaming DT look like it's dying.

Which should be no surprise. Game publishers don't like gaming DT because of piracy. Intel doesn't want it because upgrade cycles are dominated by AMD and Nvidia GPUs. Game developers don't want it because it's easier to satisfy console gamers. There are a lot of factors pushing against gaming DTs. If AMD does go for being strong in gaming DTs, they're going to have a very big fight, but having the consoles is a massive win. It's akin to having control of Microsoft Windows and some large software vendors like Adobe when introducing AMD64 extension.

 

[8350rocks]

<Bunch of unsupported and unfounded rubbish goes here>

How I see it...

Emphasis mine...

This is exactly my point...EVERYTHING you present as facts are, in fact, your opinion. You offer nothing more than that, which is not productive in a technical discussion, and frankly, pisses a lot of people off.

How I see it, you're just an uninformed little troll who loves Intel more than anything else on earth.

Now, the difference there is, I have 150+ pages of proof that how I see it, is not far off the mark.

You have nothing to show but opinions, and do you know what they say about opinions?

They say they're like @$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink!

 

[griptwister]

I like Intel so much that I would not even want to use an AMD system even if it was 10x faster at a similar price. I just want the best that makes less worries for me and intel provide this all round capability from slightly faster ram to everything working better by 5-10% like games or multitasking snappy feel or single threaded apps like fotosizer and you don't need a dedicated gpu unlike the fx series cpu. In this way steamroller apus is a good thing and if steamroller improves ipc by 30% it will be close to sandy bridge product like for example 6 core i7 will perform similar to a higher clocked theoretical 8 core SR cpu if they make one.

Lol, how I read this post.

I'm sure, anyone of us in this thread would take a 8 core i7 over a FX 8350 any day as long as it was the same ball park price point wise. Truth is, the FX 8350 meets 8350rocks' needs at the right price point.

hafijur, you haven't even said if you've owned a AMD processor.

I talked to Intel eng, and he even told me Most of Intel's products are over priced. He told me the i5 is probably their best budget processor for any gamer. Unless if they're going QHD or 4K, then a 6 core i7 would be best.

He even stated that anything AMD prices similar to an intel product, they perform similarly. Hence FX 8350 = i5 (and i7 in other applications)

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

According to recent studies:

High Performance Desktop is on the rise...

People are paying more for more performance, and that segment of desktop is expanding. It is driven almost entirely by PC Gamers.

In fact, it is this reason that Intel is not killing off the Extreme series, even though it's a low volume sell, they intend to eventually shift DIY PC builders to *that* platform for anything other than a weak SoC. The margins are higher, and the price gouging much greater on the extreme series stuff.

If AMD abandons that expanding market, then they're far more foolish than I would have ever guessed. They could easily win it back with a good FX steamroller with 8 cores performing on par with a 4770k. Hell, if they even got close to Ivy Bridge in single thread capability, people would buy it for the multitasking and threaded workloads.

In order to compete in that segment AMD needs to do just 2 things well:

1.) Get performance in the same ballpark. It doesn't have to be better, but close to IB single thread performance would be all over it. Especially considering the lame duck that is hasfail.

2.) They would need to be price competitive there...(I foresee this being easily done) as long as you could buy an AMD product for a bit less than an Intel product with similar performance, they would sell lots of them.

ARM will not replace high end x86 DT for gaming and other x86 workloads. Not likely in my lifetime anyway.

ARM for Micro Servers? Sure, you have software support.

ARM for HE DT? No...Crysis 3 will not play on an A57.

/end to silliness about ARM overtaking x86.

The CPU of the Kaveri APU is at the i5 level. That is high-performance level. And the HSA APU, as a whole, is above the i7 level. That is also high-performance.

I doubt Intel makes lots of money from the eXtreme series, it is more a marketing tactic as the Titan for Nvidia. If AMD releases an enthusiast CPU line (I doubt), it will be priced at the eXtreme series level. Regarding graphics cards AMD already said that its next gen (just to be presented) will be not focusing the high-end top level market, but one level below that.

As you know, AMD won the consoles contract for Sony and Microsoft. Do you know that MIPS and PowerPC were soon eliminated from the race, but ARM was in close competition with x86?

Then it came down to ARM versus X86 architecture. I am told there was a technical “bake-off”, where prototype silicon was tested against each other across a myriad of application-based and synthetic benchmarks. At the end of the bake-off, ARM was deemed as not having the right kind of horsepower and that its 64-bit architecture wasn’t ready soon enough. 64-bit was important as it maximized memory addressability, and the next gen console needed to run multiple apps, operating systems and hypervisors. ARM-based architectures will soon get as powerful as AMD’s Jaguar cores, but not when Sony or Microsoft needed them for their new consoles.

That future is here. ARM64 is ready and the A57 core provides the same performance than jaguar core but with increased efficiency. That is why AMD is replacing their own jaguar servers by the new ARM servers.

Moreover, custom ARM cores will be much faster than A57. Game developers as J. Carmack have already shown their public support for the Nvidia project Denver. You can read about the project here. It is aimed to replacing x86 in desktops, servers, and supercomputers.

And many in the game industry are convinced that the next gen consoles (PS5...) will be all them ARM based.

Here some recent PC sales data

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Technology/2013/04/10/PC-sales-in-free-fall/UPI-82731365637852/

Here AMD stating again that their focus is mobile and game consoles

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/info-tech/amd-focuses-on-mobile-devices-gaming-markets/article4978016.ece

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAA!!!!!

Lets see how great this "bay trail" is since someone believe its a decent processor. Not even remotely close to an IVY bridge cpu, but turbo lets it beat the 1.5ghz jaguar (but not the 2.0 ghz)

And Intel Bayl Trail is a very good chip.

LOL You are very seriously misguided.

First, desktops will be not using phone-level rated ARMs, but desktop-level rated ARMs. Apple will be not using a 1W dual-core 1.6 Ghz phone chip in a desktop.

Do you understand the difference between a Temash chip and a FX-9590? Your hahaha approach is so misguided like if you did look to raw performance of a Temash chip (a tablet-level rated chip) and concluded that x86 architecture is not powerful enough for a high-end PC and that no PC will be using a 220W FX-9590.

Second, the article from where you got some of the figures also says:

In multithreaded integer workloads, the Z3770 gets dangerously close to Ivy Bridge levels of performance.

"Dangerously close" is the correct term because this is a phone-level rated chip. This means that you can have about the 40%-80% of the performance of a modern laptop in a........... smartphone.

Third, the Z3770 only consumes 1W-2.5W in those tests. Yes this is not a typo, it is single digit power consumption, whereas the Ivy Bridge chips consumed about 9x more. This means the new Silvermont design is about 4x-8x more efficient than Ivy Bridge.

Some say "wow" you say hahahaha

I had a few 2 laptops with amd cpu from 2006-7 hp both went faulty common problem with amd laptops. Had an inspiron 1501 tl50 x2 around 2009 and it was so slow as its like going from a sluggish machine to my 5930g c2d 2ghz which is similar feel to my current i5 3210m np550p5c laptop. I mentioned somewhere before I got two acer 722 netbooks with c60 and they are also very slow. Much slower then my 5930g. Feels similar to single atoms but good for youtube hd videos with gpu used. Without gpu acceleration its like a slideshow though.

Speaking of which, Intel has barely evolved since the Core Arch, a 3.6GHz+ Yorkfield can still kick@$$ and take names. You realize the Dell Laptop was from 07 and was a budget system right?

 

[8350rocks]

I had a few 2 laptops with amd cpu from 2006-7 hp both went faulty common problem with amd laptops. Had an inspiron 1501 tl50 x2 around 2009 and it was so slow as its like going from a sluggish machine to my 5930g c2d 2ghz which is similar feel to my current i5 3210m np550p5c laptop. I mentioned somewhere before I got two acer 722 netbooks with c60 and they are also very slow. Much slower then my 5930g. Feels similar to single atoms but good for youtube hd videos with gpu used. Without gpu acceleration its like a slideshow though.

You're comparing a budget laptop to a mid range laptop from different architectures that were 3 years apart in technology...

Yeah. That's called false equivalency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

There, you can read about the flaws in every argument you present in one place. Because that's your modus operandi...false equivalency.

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

Apart from trigate transistors improving ipc like 80% halving power consumption doubling performance of cpus and providing with haswell igpu about 10-20x faster then onboard intel gma 4500 hd graphics without takig much more power they haven't done much.

Riight, the "real IPC" has not changed since Bloomfield, while adding at most, a 30% increase that be countered with an everyday OC and relying on a 18 year old P6 based arch, got it...

 

[noob2222]

I had a few 2 laptops with amd cpu from 2006-7 hp both went faulty common problem with amd laptops. Had an inspiron 1501 tl50 x2 around 2009 and it was so slow as its like going from a sluggish machine to my 5930g c2d 2ghz which is similar feel to my current i5 3210m np550p5c laptop. I mentioned somewhere before I got two acer 722 netbooks with c60 and they are also very slow. Much slower then my 5930g. Feels similar to single atoms but good for youtube hd videos with gpu used. Without gpu acceleration its like a slideshow though.

Im sure the HP laptops common problem was an AMD problem.

http://www.ehow.com/how_12227296_fix-reflow-nvidia-hp.html

or not.

Your other problem was probably windows vista running on a 200rpm hard drive.

other than that, sober up before posting runonsentencesthatmakenosenseatall.

 

[noob2222]

@juan

AGAIN LOL,

In multithreaded integer workloads, the Z3770 gets dangerously close to Ivy Bridge levels of performance. Again, we're overstating Bay Trail's performance here as the Z3770 has four cores while the Core i5-3317U only has two (but with Hyper Threading presenting another 2 virtual cores). I don't believe most tablet workloads are heavily threaded integer workloads, however the world is hardly single threaded anymore. The reality is that a quad-core Bay Trail should perform somewhere between 40% - 80% of a dual-core Ivy Bridge

wow, thats impressive you only took the first sentence and tried to defend yourself. 4 cores to equal 40-80% of a dual core Ivy bridge .... you fail miserably.

Thats funny, looking at that same test, AMD >>> Ivy bridge

you can continue to anxiously wait for your mediocre performance - non compliant products all you want.

I can also see you bought intel's new SDP gimmick for cpu power ... 2 watts SDP != 2W TDP

LOL. I avoided the part I was sure would confuse you... and your reply confirms that my suspicion was right.

What you continue without understanding is that they are testing a phone-level chip. Aka the chip is thermally constrained to fit inside a phone. That phone-level chip is offering a 40-80% of the performance of an i5/i7 laptop chip, but is consuming only 1W-2.5W.

Nobody mentioned SDPs or TDPs. You are again making up things in your brain. The phone chip was consuming a maximum of 2.5W during those tests (and ~700mW at iddle). I can sure you that the Ivy Bridge chips used in that comparison consume much much much more than 2.5W. The conclusion is evident the new Silvermont architecture is much much more efficient than Ivy Bridge.

If the phone-level chip was scaled up to something as 8W, it would be faster than the Ivy Bridge chips in raw performance, but guess what? Then it couldn't be used inside a phone.

The funny part is that the new Silvermont architecture by Intel has retained the crowd only during one week! Apple has just released its new phone chip and has humiliated Intel

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/6

A dual-core ARM64 @ 1.3Ghz is offering about the same raw performance than a (Kabini) quad-core jaguar @ 1.5GHz. And don't miss that the Apple chip is thermally constrained to phone-level (single digit power consumption).

lets just check that shall we?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614-3.html

wow, what do you know ... a 10W bay trail ...

ya .. thats definately on par with Ivy Bridge ... 2.4ghz dual core to 2.6 dual core .. IVY is over 2x as fast. Must be that 200 mhz speed advantage. I bet If you clock that bay trail to 2.6 ghz it will wipe IVY bridge off the map.

 

[noob2222]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614-4.html

This is why baytrail is exciting. People comparing it to high power watts cpus are doing this disservice.
This takes the least by a long way to complete tomshardware benchmark suite. Its 70% more efficient then the previous 32nm atom. This is because they made it without gimp the order design and taking off ht.

wow that is impressive, you saved 9W by waiting over twice as long. thats a savings of 0.1 cents @12c/kwh.

the only people excited are the people who think thats a bargain. Obviously your time is worth $0.001.

 

[8350rocks]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614-4.html

This is why baytrail is exciting. People comparing it to high power watts cpus are doing this disservice.
This takes the least by a long way to complete tomshardware benchmark suite. Its 70% more efficient then the previous 32nm atom. This is because they made it without gimp the order design and taking off ht.

LOL!!!

Baytrail is so exciting???

Kabini mops the floor with it across the board!!!

I guess Kabini is that exciting too, huh? Since it's even better performance per watt than Baytrail, and better performance clock for clock, and better performance per dollar too.

LOL!!! Intel fanboys are hilarious!!!!

 

[juanrga]

The funny part is that the new Silvermont architecture by Intel has retained the crowd only during one week! Apple has just released its new phone chip and has humiliated Intel

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/6

A dual-core ARM64 @ 1.3Ghz is offering about the same raw performance than a (Kabini) quad-core jaguar @ 1.5GHz. And don't miss that the Apple chip is thermally constrained to phone-level (single digit power consumption).

If you're referring to the chart where the iphone 5s is running iOS (mobile OS) vs. the A4-5000 running winblows 8...you're seriously misunderstanding the reference.

Winblows 8 or RT on that iphone 5s would slow it down dramatically. A mobile OS is much less convoluted than a full blown desktop OS...it has to be. Because ARM CPUs in mobile phones cannot run a full blown desktop OS very fast, they don't have the raw compute power.

Now that I've straightened out that mess, go back to the drawing board and draw some wrong conclusions from another presentation.

That slide from AT is simply there as a comparison of unlike architectures to show relative performance to what your laptop might have. It's far from a be all end all comparison.

The A7 isn't that great...is it a step forward for ARM? Sure, and Apple as well. However, keep in mind...the man who designed that chip now wears an AMD hat, or have you forgotten that the A7 was JK's last project at Apple?

As someone pointed out quite a while back, when JK left, the silicon renaissance at Apple ended.

But you miss that I already considered the overhead from different OSs, that is why I said "about the same performance" instead of "up to twice faster".

You can see it from an alternative point of view. AMD claims that the standard A57 is about so faster as its own jaguar core. And Apple custom core is better than the standard.

Interesting that you mention JK. Some people believed that JK return to AMD was for working on a new high-performance x86 core. However, its first work at AMD has been the development of an ARM/x86 hybrid CPU. And I suspect that JK main project at AMD will be the design of a custom ARM core for competing with Nvidia and the like. Recall that Seattle uses the standard A57.

 

[griptwister]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614-4.html

This is why baytrail is exciting. People comparing it to high power watts cpus are doing this disservice.
This takes the least by a long way to complete tomshardware benchmark suite. Its 70% more efficient then the previous 32nm atom. This is because they made it without gimp the order design and taking off ht.

These benchmarks make it look even more impressive xD

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614-6.html

 

[juanrga]

Intel are ahead of any company on nm for cpu design. I think intel are a bargain they are selling amazing stuff, which will take amd another 4-5 years to get to haswell level and you get an igpu cutting edge technology.

Nope. Excavator is coming in 2015.

@juan

AGAIN LOL,

In multithreaded integer workloads, the Z3770 gets dangerously close to Ivy Bridge levels of performance. Again, we're overstating Bay Trail's performance here as the Z3770 has four cores while the Core i5-3317U only has two (but with Hyper Threading presenting another 2 virtual cores). I don't believe most tablet workloads are heavily threaded integer workloads, however the world is hardly single threaded anymore. The reality is that a quad-core Bay Trail should perform somewhere between 40% - 80% of a dual-core Ivy Bridge

wow, thats impressive you only took the first sentence and tried to defend yourself. 4 cores to equal 40-80% of a dual core Ivy bridge .... you fail miserably.

Thats funny, looking at that same test, AMD >>> Ivy bridge

you can continue to anxiously wait for your mediocre performance - non compliant products all you want.

I can also see you bought intel's new SDP gimmick for cpu power ... 2 watts SDP != 2W TDP

LOL. I avoided the part I was sure would confuse you... and your reply confirms that my suspicion was right.

What you continue without understanding is that they are testing a phone-level chip. Aka the chip is thermally constrained to fit inside a phone. That phone-level chip is offering a 40-80% of the performance of an i5/i7 laptop chip, but is consuming only 1W-2.5W.

Nobody mentioned SDPs or TDPs. You are again making up things in your brain. The phone chip was consuming a maximum of 2.5W during those tests (and ~700mW at iddle). I can sure you that the Ivy Bridge chips used in that comparison consume much much much more than 2.5W. The conclusion is evident the new Silvermont architecture is much much more efficient than Ivy Bridge.

If the phone-level chip was scaled up to something as 8W, it would be faster than the Ivy Bridge chips in raw performance, but guess what? Then it couldn't be used inside a phone.

The funny part is that the new Silvermont architecture by Intel has retained the crowd only during one week! Apple has just released its new phone chip and has humiliated Intel

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/6

A dual-core ARM64 @ 1.3Ghz is offering about the same raw performance than a (Kabini) quad-core jaguar @ 1.5GHz. And don't miss that the Apple chip is thermally constrained to phone-level (single digit power consumption).

lets just check that shall we?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bay-trail-celeron-j1750-performance,3614-3.html

wow, what do you know ... a 10W bay trail ...

ya .. thats definately on par with Ivy Bridge ... 2.4ghz dual core to 2.6 dual core .. IVY is over 2x as fast. Must be that 200 mhz speed advantage. I bet If you clock that bay trail to 2.6 ghz it will wipe IVY bridge off the map.

LOL That was funny as well. You pretended to compare a ~2W chip to a ~20W chip and when I quadrupled the former chip to ~8W for comparing it with the ~20W in the same benchmark, showing you that the new architecture is more efficient, you reaction is... comparing now a 10W to a 55W chip! Funny, really funny. Let me guess If I now scale up the chip above the 10W you will change the other chip again. Will you chose a 130W maybe?

I wonder why you are ignoring the conclusions of the same article that you are using to obtain your figures. Take a look to the section "Bail Trail is faster and much more efficient":

When Intel introduced us to its Silvermont architecture, the company made grand claims of increased performance at a given thermal ceiling, or similar performance at reduced power.

[...]

The company wasn't exaggerating when it suggested that the Silvermont architecture could as much as double performance at a given power limit. Snappy little passively-cooled platforms are almost certainly on their way toward the end of the year. Intel tells us that its partners are already working on fully integrated desktops and all-in-one designs, as well as channel-oriented motherboards with soldered-down CPUs.

 

[8350rocks]

LOL!!!
Baytrail is so exciting???
Kabini mops the floor with it across the board!!!
I guess Kabini is that exciting too, huh? Since it's even better performance per watt than Baytrail, and better performance clock for clock, and better performance per dollar too.
LOL!!! Intel fanboys are hilarious!!!!

Kabini is about 2x worse performance per watt at least then baytrail. They are about similar clock for clock. How do you know its better performance per dollar. Its actually near impossible for kaveri to even come close to intel 22nm atom level of performance per watt. Even if kaveri was at 14nm it most likely would still be worse in this regard. Also intel improved the graphics card by nearly 7x over its predecessor. Comparing its performance per watt to kaveri is an insult to baytrail. Baytrail is most likely better then anything amd will manage performance per watt for next 4 years in this low power space. Its even shocked me how intel have managed to do this. Watch this space, all reviews even from amd fanboys will be amazed by baytrail as a new next gen low power cpu. This is intels first real work on atom since like 5 years ago changing the order design and taking ht off improving gpu performance and taking less power is just insane even if its at 22nm.

edit 1080p with superfast atom great igpu and extremely low power is what I thought was near impossible 5 years ago for 1080p low size screen netbook/tablets but now its possible:
http://liliputing.com/2013/09/hp-omni-10-is-hps-first-bay-trail-tablet.html

Actually considering it's roughly 50% faster, and only consumes about 40% more power, it's better perf/watt. It's better clock for clock as the kabini is clocked @ 1.5 GHz and baytrail is clocked higher and performs worse. Also, in terms of perf/$ the A4-5000 is showing up in netbooks for $349 with a better iGPU than baytrail. I doubt we see baytrail in netbooks at that price point at all.

Exciting times to hate Intel for sure!!!

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

come next year, all non-nvidia sponsored games might look like this. AMD probably doesn't even need a new card in that case.

Go home hafijur, you're drunk!

Annnndddd loook!!!! Turns out us so called "AMD fanbois" were right!

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/xbox-one-ps4-amd-apu-pc-gaming,24295.html

"When consoles are first launched, games are first developed on console and then ported to PC," he added. "Because it's our architecture there, it's easier to port the games. And because they're first developed on our hardware, there should be a performance advantage. They should run better on our hardware. So if we can create that performance advantage on the PC, from a graphics point of view, then we can give our customers a better gaming experience and grow our market share."

They need to realize:
1. It's a custom OS made for AMD
2. There's no other hardware competition for Consoles right now
3. PC does not = Console
4. Yes the hardware is better than last generation, however, the architecture with no doubt will be lowered. My Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Radeon 5570 are about the same performance of these consoles. (ex: BF4. Really no performance difference from BF3, and to get 60 FPS on a console? Yeah that needs some serious tuning, especially considering that the console version on lowest possible settings on my pc runs on multiplayer at ~20-30 FPS).


They are leaving out major facts. Also I saw a post earlier about how Intel isn't really leaving Desktop and they are implementing more into the Extreme series.

Unless they dropped the price of the Extreme series, there's absolutely no point. Take a 3930k and OC it to 3.5, you'll be getting similar performance as a 3960X except with less Power Consumption and less heat.

I even think the 4930k will be amazing, on that IB-E. I'm hearing mixed feelings from gamers, but other than that, its great.

As a side note, I think you all may know this website: anandtech.com

Super fast and easy way to get your point across, as well as efficiently and correctly. They can do GPU and CPU comparisons across a surprisingly wide variety of tests. Also, there's this place: postimage.org

You can upload your own image and host it for free. I could make a comparison off of anandtech and then post it up in less than a minute. You're welcome. ^_^

 

[The Q6660 Inside]

come next year, all non-nvidia sponsored games might look like this. AMD probably doesn't even need a new card in that case.

Go home hafijur, you're drunk!

Annnndddd loook!!!! Turns out us so called "AMD fanbois" were right!

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/xbox-one-ps4-amd-apu-pc-gaming,24295.html

"When consoles are first launched, games are first developed on console and then ported to PC," he added. "Because it's our architecture there, it's easier to port the games. And because they're first developed on our hardware, there should be a performance advantage. They should run better on our hardware. So if we can create that performance advantage on the PC, from a graphics point of view, then we can give our customers a better gaming experience and grow our market share."

They need to realize:
1. It's a custom OS made for AMD
2. There's no other hardware competition for Consoles right now
3. PC does not = Console
4. Yes the hardware is better than last generation, however, the architecture with no doubt will be lowered. My Core 2 Quad Q8300 and Radeon 5570 are about the same performance of these consoles. (ex: BF4. Really no performance difference from BF3, and to get 60 FPS on a console? Yeah that needs some serious tuning, especially considering that the console version on lowest possible settings on my pc runs on multiplayer at ~20-30 FPS).


They are leaving out major facts. Also I saw a post earlier about how Intel isn't really leaving Desktop and they are implementing more into the Extreme series.

Unless they dropped the price of the Extreme series, there's absolutely no point. Take a 3930k and OC it to 3.5, you'll be getting similar performance as a 3960X except with less Power Consumption and less heat.

I even think the 4930k will be amazing, on that IB-E. I'm hearing mixed feelings from gamers, but other than that, its great.

As a side note, I think you all may know this website: anandtech.com

Super fast and easy way to get your point across, as well as efficiently and correctly. They can do GPU and CPU comparisons across a surprisingly wide variety of tests. Also, there's this place: postimage.org

You can upload your own image and host it for free. I could make a comparison off of anandtech and then post it up in less than a minute. You're welcome. ^_^

5570, seems legit, you realize a PS4 is packing a 7850+ CPU and 8-cores right?

 

[juanrga]

In this way steamroller apus is a good thing and if steamroller improves ipc by 30% it will be close to sandy bridge product

If Steamroller is 30% ipc then will be above sandy bridge in performance.

Its actually near impossible for kaveri to even come close to intel 22nm atom level of performance per watt.

Kaveri is built over high-performance cores. It is not aimed to compete with Intel Atoms. Someone as you, who mentions AMD two or three times per post, would know that the traditional competitor of Intel Atoms are the AMD cat series. Intel Silvermont Atoms will be competing against AMD enhanced jaguar chips

http://wccftech.com/amd-jaguar-based-beema-mullins-apus-confirmed-2014-feature-hsa-enhancements/

 

[blackkstar]

http://techreport.com/review/25329/intel-atom-z3000-bay-trail-soc-revealed/4

Baytrail shocked me, I was shocked when I first used an i5 3317u at 2.4ghz at 100% with screen on taking 26w and it was 2.2x faster then my 2ghz core 2 duo at encoding while taking much less power. Its impossible for amd to be better performance per watt to a compareable intel cpu as intels architecture is more power efficient, intel have 22nm 3d trigate trasistors even if amd were at 20nm I would still think baytrail would beat amd in this regard. amd have to be basically on 14nm to come close to intel on 22nm so amd 28nm vs intel 22nm is not a contest.

lol, herpiderp bro, the people in this thread are a lot smarter than the typical iDrone that just needs someone to say "this is great!" for them to believe something is great.

You're making a fool of yourself, go home. Even if CPU performance is good, Kabini GPU is going to mop the floor with mega-downlocked Intel HD GPU.