AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[Cazalan]

You can, and anyone should, back up your bit/litecoin wallet to a USB stick. Hell it is a small file so you can easily throw it on a cloud drive, thumb drive and eHDD to be super safe. And that should be done daily.

I didn't mean that kind of backup protection. I meant if someone was able to hack your wallet and transfer the coins then those coins are gone forever. And there is nothing you can do about it.

A typical banking account is FDIC insured up to 100K.

 

[jimmysmitty]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8871755&CatId=7387

tiger direct looks to be staying out of the gouging, looks like i will be buying a 290 at a reasonable price.

How do you figure they are staying out of the price gouging? The R9 290's MSRP is in the $400 range.

$400 for the stock configuration. Most after market cooled ones would be $450, some really high end ones like a Sapphire Toxic or Asus Matrix would be $500 max normally.

Still $599 is way above that even.

You can, and anyone should, back up your bit/litecoin wallet to a USB stick. Hell it is a small file so you can easily throw it on a cloud drive, thumb drive and eHDD to be super safe. And that should be done daily.

I didn't mean that kind of backup protection. I meant if someone was able to hack your wallet and transfer the coins then those coins are gone forever. And there is nothing you can do about it.

A typical banking account is FDIC insured up to 100K.

Your wallet is local unless you use a online wallet. Most normal people would use a local wallet because it is more secure. SO in order to hack your wallet they also need to be able to hack your PC and if they do that then you have more issues than just a coin wallet.

 

[jdwii]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8871755&CatId=7387

tiger direct looks to be staying out of the gouging, looks like i will be buying a 290 at a reasonable price.

How do you figure they are staying out of the price gouging? The R9 290's MSRP is in the $400 range.

Sucks i was kinda thinking about getting a 280X..but not for anything above 330$

 

[juggernautxtr]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8871755&CatId=7387

tiger direct looks to be staying out of the gouging, looks like i will be buying a 290 at a reasonable price.

How do you figure they are staying out of the price gouging? The R9 290's MSRP is in the $400 range.

where you got your numbers AMD's official msrp.

"Considering the card carries an official $550 MSRP,"

 

[palladin9479]

The posted benchmarks are all things that involved work that could be farmed off to an array co-processor. You won't see that kind of increase in real world day to day applications, especially not games (for those of you focused on them).

It's very good technology yet people need to keep perspective or face another chair flipping "WTF AMD!!!10101" moment. It's fabulous at what it was designed to do (make farming off highly parallel work to an array coprocessor easy to do with minimal overhead).

 

[Sigmanick]

ASUS DCUII 7850 @ stock produces 300-330 KHash on CG Miner depending on aggression level. I haven't mined since i went to 8320, i might want to see how many KHash i can get with GPU and CPU mining running concurrently.

 

[juggernautxtr]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I53056S/ref=s9_simh_gw_p147_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1QAJSWS51ACCS7XEPDHV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846

lol........anybody need a 290x? seriously? people are this desperate?
roughly this guy is trying to get $1000 per card, 4 power supplys at least 600 watt as 290 will pull almost 300 watts+
these pricks aren't making money mining they making money doubling the price of the card and reselling it to some unsuspecting person who's gonna be spending 100 extra bucks a month pushing that farm.

 

[Cazalan]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I53056S/ref=s9_simh_gw_p147_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1QAJSWS51ACCS7XEPDHV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846

lol........anybody need a 290x? seriously? people are this desperate?
roughly this guy is trying to get $1000 per card, 4 power supplys at least 600 watt as 290 will pull almost 300 watts+
these pricks aren't making money mining they making money doubling the price of the card and reselling it to some unsuspecting person who's gonna be spending 100 extra bucks a month pushing that farm.

That's some quality duct taping right there. Priceless!

 

[palladin9479]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I53056S/ref=s9_simh_gw_p147_d0_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1QAJSWS51ACCS7XEPDHV&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1688200382&pf_rd_i=507846

lol........anybody need a 290x? seriously? people are this desperate?
roughly this guy is trying to get $1000 per card, 4 power supplys at least 600 watt as 290 will pull almost 300 watts+
these pricks aren't making money mining they making money doubling the price of the card and reselling it to some unsuspecting person who's gonna be spending 100 extra bucks a month pushing that farm.

If those systems could actually make net money, they he'd be running it himself and not selling it to someone else. It's already too late for BTC and LTC is going to be slamming into a wall soon as the difficulty will start to skyrocket due to all the added capacity on the market.

 

[de5_Roy]

AMD Mantle Interview with Oxide Games' Dan Baker
http://www.maximumpc.com/AMD_Mantle_Interview_2014

 

[ColinAP]

AMD Mantle Interview with Oxide Games' Dan Baker
http://www.maximumpc.com/AMD_Mantle_Interview_2014

Nice, good insight.

Though I doubt if it'll convince GamerK to come out and say, "You know what, I was wrong about MANTEL"

 

[de5_Roy]

Nice, good insight.
Though I doubt if it'll convince GamerK to come out and say, "You know what, I was wrong about MANTEL"

it won't. notice certain omissions and vagueness in the statements. at least he confirms that mantle isn't close to metal like consoles.

 

[juanrga]

Intel is introducing a new core, the KL core, for the new Phi. I already gave you a link with details of the new core arch.

I have given you a quote from Intel representative saying that the new KL Phi further advances "heterogeneous computing" (his own words).

The discrete card version of Phi cannot compete against the discrete cards from Nvidia, neither in raw performance nor in code easiness. CUDA GPUs are about 2x faster than Phi. People prefer Xeon+CUDA rather than Xeon+Phi. Intel is trying to change the game rules with the new socket version. If you purchase the socketed Phi and it works well alone, without requiring a discrete card, then you don't need to purchase Nvidia nor AMD anymore.

As mentioned above "neo-heterogeneity" is a marketing term. Intel is not offering a simplified/unified programming model. In fact the kind of modifications that your code requires to work efficienctly on a Phi is close to the modifications needed for CUDA. The only difference is that CUDA tools can do the optimization simpler.

Xeon Phi has homogeneous cores. Intel fully intends that Xeon Phi will be coupled with Xeon in an HPC deployment. That is their game plan for heterogeneous HPC. I haven't seen anyone besides yourself even suggest that there would be HPC deployments of just Phi. Phi does not have any high speed cores. They are all slow speed cores.

Yet I have seen discussions about a DP (2-way) or MP (4-way) system where there would be one Xeon and one Phi. Or 2 Xeon and 2 Phi, or 1 Xeon and 3 Phi. This is what socketing allows them to do.

Change the subject to which is going to perform better or which is easier to code for if you like, but I have no skin in that game. Nvidia has a full suite of tools and Intel has a full suite of tools. Engineers can cry all day about how hard their job is but it doesn't make them look good. They're paid to get results. If it was just push button they would outsource their jobs to interns.

I already explained you how Intel must be achieving heterogeneity at the intra-core level not at the core level. You deleted it. I also gave you a quote from Intel about how their new Phi advances "heterogeneous computing" (his own words). You deleted it. You must be also ignoring what Intel says regarding your HPC deployments of just Phi:

According to details released by Intel at the Supercomputing Conference late yesterday, however, it won't always be this way. The next-generation version will also be available as a standalone CPU, constructed on a 14nm process node. Unlike the original Xeon Phi, the next-generation model will be able to operate entirely independently - executing both serial operating system tasks and parallel code on the same chip - with no need for a traditional CPU at all.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/11/20/intel-xeon-phi/1

Intel Corp. is planning to bring to market a stand-alone Xeon Phi CPU that can replace the combination of Xeon CPU and Xeon Phi coprocessor widely used in high performance computing (HPC) systems today.

The company did not say when it was planning to bring the product – which will use the 14nm process technology – to market when it announced it at this week's SC13 supercomputing conference in Denver.

Raj Hazra, VP of Intel's data center group and general manager of its technical computing group, said the concept of making Phi a host processor will do away with the notion of having to off-load code across a PCIe or some other limited-capacity connection.

[...]

Intel's announcement does not mean it is going to stop developing Xeon Phi coprocessors. Knights Landing (Intel's codename for Phi) will be available in two flavors, Radoslaw Walczyk, a company spokesman, wrote in an email. “There are many customers who may just want to upgrade their PCIe coprocessor without [changing] the entire platform,” he said.

http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/focus/archive/2013/11/intel-working-stand-alone-xeon-phi-cpu


Intel is just doing what I said that AMD and Nvidia are doing. It is only that Intel is doing it first.

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

What is the problem with the links? AMD has just given more info and technical details about the Steamroller modules used in Kaveri, whereas Intel has given more info about Haswell.

With both, none are really news. Everything listed about Haswell has been known since last year, same with the Steamroller modules in Kaveri.

We would rather get news on a non APU version of Steamroller and possibly Intels next CPU, Broadwell/the Haswell refresh.

Except that during the 2014 IEEE talks, both AMD and Intel have given details that they didn't before. If you can link to an old article with the info in the IEEE slides, please do it.

How could AMD give news about a non-existent "non APU version of Steamroller"?

The original rumor was that Steamroller was to be the next after PD. And we all knew AMD was going to integrate its new design into APUs but never knew they were going to kill off the idea of a CPU only.

Of course things change over time and that's why rumors are rumors.

As for the fabrication, that is what I said. I said issues with yields which could be many things unless specifically stated. It could even be due to the arch itself, but more than likely is the process tech.

As for Apple/NVidia they are using ARM as the core design and adding, as I said ARM as a basis and adding on to it. Neither are fully their own designs like say Haswell or Pile Driver are for Intel and AMD.

And still in terms of complexity, Apples A7 does not yet have OoOE. Still it is ARM who is making the claim to 10nm, not Apple and it means ARMs designs are what they see on 10nm, not Apples or nVidias.

I would like to know who is fabbing the 10nm though.

Since AMD presented its server roadmap and plans at early 2013, we knew that AMD was not releasing Steamroller Opteron CPUs. I was one of the first who predicted that the server roadmap implied that AMD was killing the idea of a FX Steamroller CPU. I received lots of replies: from a hard "you have no idea, what you say is impossible" to a weak "wait for the desktop roadmap". All the roadmaps for 2014 and 2015 are now well-known and confirm what I said.

I assume that you have no link that give to my request.

I already gave you a link from Intel acknowledging that the problem is in the fabrication process. I also said you that Altera is considering to leave Intel by TMSC. The problem cannot be due to Broadwell arch.

Neither Apple A7 nor Nvidia Denver are using ARM core designs as base. Both companies are designing their own cores from scratch. Specially Nvidia, whose design is derived from their initial x86 core. I already mentioned this to you.

Apple predecessor A6 SoC (32 bit) already had OoO. Even standard Cortex cores from ARM have been OoO designs since 32 bits. I think you would also compare performance before making claims about complexity

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

Apple A7 SoC (a dual core @ 1.3GHz) is able to compete with "the best AMD and Intel have to offer in this space" aka quad-cores at higher frequencies: 1.46GHz for Intel (Turbo of 2.39GHz) and 1.5GHz for AMD. You need to double the number of x86 cores and maintain higher frequencies to offer the performance of ARM cores from Apple.

The ultra-high-performance APU from Nvidia that I mentioned in the past is designed for 10nm.

Samsung is the only company I know of that has actually prototyped anything on 10nm, even then it wasn't a SoC...it was NAND memory, which is a completely different technology from CPU/APU/SoC of any kind. I have not heard anything from anyone about tape outs on 10nm, even Intel isn't getting what they want from 14nm.

ARM has already fabbed 14nm chips

And I already mentioned the next slide to you. Check that part about tapping out 10nm chip

That benchmark you posted doesn't show anything but BayTrail, a A4 5000 and the Apple A& all in a bunch of web browser benchmarks. How is that equaling performance? Those benchmarks show nothing really and besides CPU they also are dependent on what browser is used and since each CPU was tested on different OSes ( 8 for the AMD A4, 8.1 for the Atom and iOS for the Apple A7) meaning different browsers for each (IE10, IE11 and Safari) it is a null and void comparison.

The only way to get a true equal comparison is to compare the chips on an equal OC with the same software therefore eliminating any personal OS optimizations (iOS is optimized for Apples hardware, much like games for a 360 are optimized for that specific hardware). Without that equal playing field, you can make a weaker CPU like the A7 look as powerful as a Core i5 through software optimizations.

And when I see the 14nm chips out (Intel has fabbed them, they just haven't gotten the yields they desire) from Samsung or whoever is putting up the billions to setup the fab I will believe it. ARM is not really doing any fabbing or process manufacturing. They develop archs and sell them to others.

The benchmarks were good enough for Anand to make his claim, which I quoted. Evidently you cannot compare the chips up to the ms unit due to the different software used, but you can compare orders of magnitude. Changing the version of the browser your x86 hardware will not run 7x faster, which means that Anand quote is accurate: Apple A7 SoC (a dual core @ 1.3GHz) is able to compete with "the best AMD and Intel have to offer in this space" aka quad-cores at higher frequencies: 1.46GHz for Intel (Turbo of 2.39GHz) and 1.5GHz for AMD.

Moreover, we have recent data from AMD confirming that the new A57 core is faster than jaguar core using the same benchmarks. This is why AMD is replacing Opteron-X servers by Seattle servers. The ARM cores are faster than the x86 cores that are replacing. And we know that Apple custom core is much faster than standard Cortex A57...

ARM develops arch, cores, interconnects, and more things. And they work closely in collaboration with foundries (TMSC, GF, Samsung, IBM). The names of the foundries appear in the slides that I gave above.

ARM and Samsung already showed a working 14nm chip time ago

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/2896-arm-samsung-14nm-finfet.html

and 14nm ARM will be used in next gen phones

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s5-to-pack-14nm-64-bit-exynos-6-processor-says-senior-arm-exec

It is Intel which is having serious trouble with the 14nm process

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/174832-intel-cancels-14nm-fab-42-in-arizona-but-its-nothing-to-worry-about

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/33688-intel-14nm-transition-in-trouble

https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/3106-altera-leaving-intel-tsmc.html

 

[juanrga]

This is part of the profile of an AMD engineer

It says clearly that Carrizo has been designed on 28nm process as Kaveri. He is now working in 20nm chip, but this must be post-excavator.

 

[Embra]

AMD Mantle Interview with Oxide Games' Dan Baker
http://www.maximumpc.com/AMD_Mantle_Interview_2014

Nice read, Thank you.

 

[jimmysmitty]

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8871755&CatId=7387

tiger direct looks to be staying out of the gouging, looks like i will be buying a 290 at a reasonable price.

How do you figure they are staying out of the price gouging? The R9 290's MSRP is in the $400 range.

where you got your numbers AMD's official msrp.

"Considering the card carries an official $550 MSRP,"

From here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review

And on THG but I am too lazy to look up the review. The MSRP for the R9 290 is $400 for the stock configuration, the MSRP for the R9 290X is $550 for the stock configuration and the MSRP for the R9 280X (HD 7970) is $300.

$600 for a R9 290 is $200 more than MSRP and $150 more than what XFX, Asus or Sapphire are putting on MSRP.

Spoiler

What is the problem with the links? AMD has just given more info and technical details about the Steamroller modules used in Kaveri, whereas Intel has given more info about Haswell.

With both, none are really news. Everything listed about Haswell has been known since last year, same with the Steamroller modules in Kaveri.

We would rather get news on a non APU version of Steamroller and possibly Intels next CPU, Broadwell/the Haswell refresh.

Except that during the 2014 IEEE talks, both AMD and Intel have given details that they didn't before. If you can link to an old article with the info in the IEEE slides, please do it.

How could AMD give news about a non-existent "non APU version of Steamroller"?

The original rumor was that Steamroller was to be the next after PD. And we all knew AMD was going to integrate its new design into APUs but never knew they were going to kill off the idea of a CPU only.

Of course things change over time and that's why rumors are rumors.

As for the fabrication, that is what I said. I said issues with yields which could be many things unless specifically stated. It could even be due to the arch itself, but more than likely is the process tech.

As for Apple/NVidia they are using ARM as the core design and adding, as I said ARM as a basis and adding on to it. Neither are fully their own designs like say Haswell or Pile Driver are for Intel and AMD.

And still in terms of complexity, Apples A7 does not yet have OoOE. Still it is ARM who is making the claim to 10nm, not Apple and it means ARMs designs are what they see on 10nm, not Apples or nVidias.

I would like to know who is fabbing the 10nm though.

Since AMD presented its server roadmap and plans at early 2013, we knew that AMD was not releasing Steamroller Opteron CPUs. I was one of the first who predicted that the server roadmap implied that AMD was killing the idea of a FX Steamroller CPU. I received lots of replies: from a hard "you have no idea, what you say is impossible" to a weak "wait for the desktop roadmap". All the roadmaps for 2014 and 2015 are now well-known and confirm what I said.

I assume that you have no link that give to my request.

I already gave you a link from Intel acknowledging that the problem is in the fabrication process. I also said you that Altera is considering to leave Intel by TMSC. The problem cannot be due to Broadwell arch.

Neither Apple A7 nor Nvidia Denver are using ARM core designs as base. Both companies are designing their own cores from scratch. Specially Nvidia, whose design is derived from their initial x86 core. I already mentioned this to you.

Apple predecessor A6 SoC (32 bit) already had OoO. Even standard Cortex cores from ARM have been OoO designs since 32 bits. I think you would also compare performance before making claims about complexity

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

Apple A7 SoC (a dual core @ 1.3GHz) is able to compete with "the best AMD and Intel have to offer in this space" aka quad-cores at higher frequencies: 1.46GHz for Intel (Turbo of 2.39GHz) and 1.5GHz for AMD. You need to double the number of x86 cores and maintain higher frequencies to offer the performance of ARM cores from Apple.

The ultra-high-performance APU from Nvidia that I mentioned in the past is designed for 10nm.

Samsung is the only company I know of that has actually prototyped anything on 10nm, even then it wasn't a SoC...it was NAND memory, which is a completely different technology from CPU/APU/SoC of any kind. I have not heard anything from anyone about tape outs on 10nm, even Intel isn't getting what they want from 14nm.

ARM has already fabbed 14nm chips

And I already mentioned the next slide to you. Check that part about tapping out 10nm chip

That benchmark you posted doesn't show anything but BayTrail, a A4 5000 and the Apple A& all in a bunch of web browser benchmarks. How is that equaling performance? Those benchmarks show nothing really and besides CPU they also are dependent on what browser is used and since each CPU was tested on different OSes ( 8 for the AMD A4, 8.1 for the Atom and iOS for the Apple A7) meaning different browsers for each (IE10, IE11 and Safari) it is a null and void comparison.

The only way to get a true equal comparison is to compare the chips on an equal OC with the same software therefore eliminating any personal OS optimizations (iOS is optimized for Apples hardware, much like games for a 360 are optimized for that specific hardware). Without that equal playing field, you can make a weaker CPU like the A7 look as powerful as a Core i5 through software optimizations.

And when I see the 14nm chips out (Intel has fabbed them, they just haven't gotten the yields they desire) from Samsung or whoever is putting up the billions to setup the fab I will believe it. ARM is not really doing any fabbing or process manufacturing. They develop archs and sell them to others.

The benchmarks were good enough for Anand to make his claim, which I quoted. Evidently you cannot compare the chips up to the ms unit due to the different software used, but you can compare orders of magnitude. Changing the version of the browser your x86 hardware will not run 7x faster, which means that Anand quote is accurate: Apple A7 SoC (a dual core @ 1.3GHz) is able to compete with "the best AMD and Intel have to offer in this space" aka quad-cores at higher frequencies: 1.46GHz for Intel (Turbo of 2.39GHz) and 1.5GHz for AMD.

Moreover, we have recent data from AMD confirming that the new A57 core is faster than jaguar core using the same benchmarks. This is why AMD is replacing Opteron-X servers by Seattle servers. The ARM cores are faster than the x86 cores that are replacing. And we know that Apple custom core is much faster than standard Cortex A57...

ARM develops arch, cores, interconnects, and more things. And they work closely in collaboration with foundries (TMSC, GF, Samsung, IBM). The names of the foundries appear in the slides that I gave above.

ARM and Samsung already showed a working 14nm chip time ago

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/2896-arm-samsung-14nm-finfet.html

and 14nm ARM will be used in next gen phones

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s5-to-pack-14nm-64-bit-exynos-6-processor-says-senior-arm-exec

It is Intel which is having serious trouble with the 14nm process

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/174832-intel-cancels-14nm-fab-42-in-arizona-but-its-nothing-to-worry-about

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/33688-intel-14nm-transition-in-trouble

https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/3106-altera-leaving-intel-tsmc.html

Again, I wont accept what Anandtech is stating mainly because it is across different OSes and different browsers. Even the Windows 8 vs Windows 8.1 alone is not acceptable since IE11 is only on Windows 7 and 8.1 (you need to upgrade to 8.1 to get 11 in 8) and IE11 itself is faster than IE10.

It is not an equal comparison and that claim is just one person based on browse benchmarks. It would be the same as comparing one game, say Max Payne 3, on XP on a FX 8350 with DX9 to a Intel i7 4770K on 7 using DX11. Of course the XP/AMD system would look faster as DX9 doesn't use the GPU as much as DX11 does.

Until they make an even platform with the same OS using the same software to truly bench, it is not easy to make that claim. You also have to consider OS overhead. iOS is a watered down OS with very little running in the background compared to Windows 8/8.1. Most iOS based devices only have 1GB of RAM while Windows 8 uses by default with drivers and no third party apps installed 700-800MB of RAM.

As for the AMD ARM vs it current offering, there are a few things I want to point out. It is 4 x86 cores that were designed to be low power vs 8 low power cores. The Opteron X2150 also has a HD 8000 integrated which is probably a bigger chunk of the TDP, so remove that or put a lower power one in and I bet it's TDP drops.

Second, there are no third party benchmarks short of what AMD is stating that I can find, and of course they will claim what they need to try to make it sell. Their 2-4x performance on what software?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7724/it-begins-amd-announces-its-first-arm-based-server-soc-64bit8core-opteron-a1100

According to that the performance is 7 per core vs 10 per core meaning a 42% per core performance improvement, not 2-4x.

Now granted a core increase for the jaguar based CPU would increase TDP above the ARM based CPU, there is still no third party benchmarks to actually verify claims being made yet and until there are, it is all just marketing much like AMD, AMD, Samsung or any company will do to get the excitement up.

As for Intels troubles, SemiWiki seems a bit TSMC biased. I will say that I have talked to a few people who work at Intel (I live just a few hours south of their desert FABs after all) and they are not as concerned as others about it and of course are looking towards 10nm already. Things change and unless we have insider information all we can do is speculate.

I have no problem believing that Intel will produce 14nm and as well 10nm and beyond. They have been at this game long enough they are not filled with idiots.

 

[gamerk316]

Yeah, guys, remember every problem found for Intel basically pushes them back a quarter. New tech, stuff goes wrong, off for a re-spin. Nothing new here. Hence "tick-tock", to minimize risks.

 

[juggernautxtr]

"As for pricing and competitive positioning, AMD will be launching the 290 at what we consider to be a very aggressive price of $399".

$399 is a map.(manufactures advertised price) $550 is MSRP (manufactures suggested retail price)
gotta be careful of those kinda numbers written in stories, most people don't realize there are 2 prices for products.

 

[8350rocks]

So, if you like WCCFTech or not, we have some (I hate to admit this) 2nd hand bench marks for HSA software. Assuming this information has not been previously posted, and that these are 100% valid, I am impressed. First set of benchies are x86 code, second set of benchies are HSA enabled.

http:/Korean benchies via WCCF/

7850k with full on hsa whopping a 4670k intel
thats a pounding

Sure, when the software supports it...

What I find far more interesting is that when the software does not support it...the 7850k loses to the 6800k in all but one benchmark and is borderline better than the A8-3870 Llano in a few.

Not promising for HEDT.

 

[palladin9479]

So, if you like WCCFTech or not, we have some (I hate to admit this) 2nd hand bench marks for HSA software. Assuming this information has not been previously posted, and that these are 100% valid, I am impressed. First set of benchies are x86 code, second set of benchies are HSA enabled.

http:/Korean benchies via WCCF/

7850k with full on hsa whopping a 4670k intel
thats a pounding

Sure, when the software supports it...

What I find far more interesting is that when the software does not support it...the 7850k loses to the 6800k in all but one benchmark and is borderline better than the A8-3870 Llano in a few.

Not promising for HEDT.

Kaveri was mostly a GPU update, the CPU provides approximately the same performance as 6800/5800. This is primarily due to them clocking it lower to provide for more TDP on the iGPU and due to manufacturing process. The 7850K doesn't impress me for it's cost, the 7600 does.

 

[juggernautxtr]

So, if you like WCCFTech or not, we have some (I hate to admit this) 2nd hand bench marks for HSA software. Assuming this information has not been previously posted, and that these are 100% valid, I am impressed. First set of benchies are x86 code, second set of benchies are HSA enabled.

http:/Korean benchies via WCCF/

7850k with full on hsa whopping a 4670k intel


thats a pounding

Sure, when the software supports it...

What I find far more interesting is that when the software does not support it...the 7850k loses to the 6800k in all but one benchmark and is borderline better than the A8-3870 Llano in a few.

Not promising for HEDT.

more are coming, the benefits are astounding.and they will get stronger.as time progresses, i may not know all the programming aspects. but when a major tech company tells me it can be done, I assume they know what they are doing and try not to second guess it.
adobe,java and 3-4 other companies are already programming in this area.
even music/sound is starting to be processed by ppu/gpu.(parallel processing unit)

 

[gamerk316]

So, if you like WCCFTech or not, we have some (I hate to admit this) 2nd hand bench marks for HSA software. Assuming this information has not been previously posted, and that these are 100% valid, I am impressed. First set of benchies are x86 code, second set of benchies are HSA enabled.

http:/Korean benchies via WCCF/

7850k with full on hsa whopping a 4670k intel
thats a pounding

Sure, when the software supports it...

What I find far more interesting is that when the software does not support it...the 7850k loses to the 6800k in all but one benchmark and is borderline better than the A8-3870 Llano in a few.

Not promising for HEDT.

So, if you like WCCFTech or not, we have some (I hate to admit this) 2nd hand bench marks for HSA software. Assuming this information has not been previously posted, and that these are 100% valid, I am impressed. First set of benchies are x86 code, second set of benchies are HSA enabled.

http:/Korean benchies via WCCF/

7850k with full on hsa whopping a 4670k intel


thats a pounding

Sure, when the software supports it...

What I find far more interesting is that when the software does not support it...the 7850k loses to the 6800k in all but one benchmark and is borderline better than the A8-3870 Llano in a few.

Not promising for HEDT.

more are coming, the benefits are astounding.and they will get stronger.as time progresses, i may not know all the programming aspects. but when a major tech company tells me it can be done, I assume they know what they are doing and try not to second guess it.
adobe,java and 3-4 other companies are already programming in this area.
even music/sound is starting to be processed by ppu/gpu.(parallel processing unit)

But again, which is more attractive to developers:

1: Use OpenCL, which can take advantage of ANY GPU (Intel iGPU, AMD APU, or NVIDIA/AMD dGPU)

OR

2: Use HSA, which only takes advantage of AMD APU's, and CUDA, which only takes advantage of NVIDIA GPU's

I expect we'll see the market move toward OpenCL over time, though the legacy CUDA market is going to remain a problem for AMD.

 

[juanrga]

Spoiler

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8871755&CatId=7387

tiger direct looks to be staying out of the gouging, looks like i will be buying a 290 at a reasonable price.

How do you figure they are staying out of the price gouging? The R9 290's MSRP is in the $400 range.

where you got your numbers AMD's official msrp.

"Considering the card carries an official $550 MSRP,"

From here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7481/the-amd-radeon-r9-290-review

And on THG but I am too lazy to look up the review. The MSRP for the R9 290 is $400 for the stock configuration, the MSRP for the R9 290X is $550 for the stock configuration and the MSRP for the R9 280X (HD 7970) is $300.

$600 for a R9 290 is $200 more than MSRP and $150 more than what XFX, Asus or Sapphire are putting on MSRP.

Spoiler

What is the problem with the links? AMD has just given more info and technical details about the Steamroller modules used in Kaveri, whereas Intel has given more info about Haswell.

With both, none are really news. Everything listed about Haswell has been known since last year, same with the Steamroller modules in Kaveri.

We would rather get news on a non APU version of Steamroller and possibly Intels next CPU, Broadwell/the Haswell refresh.

Except that during the 2014 IEEE talks, both AMD and Intel have given details that they didn't before. If you can link to an old article with the info in the IEEE slides, please do it.

How could AMD give news about a non-existent "non APU version of Steamroller"?

The original rumor was that Steamroller was to be the next after PD. And we all knew AMD was going to integrate its new design into APUs but never knew they were going to kill off the idea of a CPU only.

Of course things change over time and that's why rumors are rumors.

As for the fabrication, that is what I said. I said issues with yields which could be many things unless specifically stated. It could even be due to the arch itself, but more than likely is the process tech.

As for Apple/NVidia they are using ARM as the core design and adding, as I said ARM as a basis and adding on to it. Neither are fully their own designs like say Haswell or Pile Driver are for Intel and AMD.

And still in terms of complexity, Apples A7 does not yet have OoOE. Still it is ARM who is making the claim to 10nm, not Apple and it means ARMs designs are what they see on 10nm, not Apples or nVidias.

I would like to know who is fabbing the 10nm though.

Since AMD presented its server roadmap and plans at early 2013, we knew that AMD was not releasing Steamroller Opteron CPUs. I was one of the first who predicted that the server roadmap implied that AMD was killing the idea of a FX Steamroller CPU. I received lots of replies: from a hard "you have no idea, what you say is impossible" to a weak "wait for the desktop roadmap". All the roadmaps for 2014 and 2015 are now well-known and confirm what I said.

I assume that you have no link that give to my request.

I already gave you a link from Intel acknowledging that the problem is in the fabrication process. I also said you that Altera is considering to leave Intel by TMSC. The problem cannot be due to Broadwell arch.

Neither Apple A7 nor Nvidia Denver are using ARM core designs as base. Both companies are designing their own cores from scratch. Specially Nvidia, whose design is derived from their initial x86 core. I already mentioned this to you.

Apple predecessor A6 SoC (32 bit) already had OoO. Even standard Cortex cores from ARM have been OoO designs since 32 bits. I think you would also compare performance before making claims about complexity

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

Apple A7 SoC (a dual core @ 1.3GHz) is able to compete with "the best AMD and Intel have to offer in this space" aka quad-cores at higher frequencies: 1.46GHz for Intel (Turbo of 2.39GHz) and 1.5GHz for AMD. You need to double the number of x86 cores and maintain higher frequencies to offer the performance of ARM cores from Apple.

The ultra-high-performance APU from Nvidia that I mentioned in the past is designed for 10nm.

Samsung is the only company I know of that has actually prototyped anything on 10nm, even then it wasn't a SoC...it was NAND memory, which is a completely different technology from CPU/APU/SoC of any kind. I have not heard anything from anyone about tape outs on 10nm, even Intel isn't getting what they want from 14nm.

ARM has already fabbed 14nm chips

And I already mentioned the next slide to you. Check that part about tapping out 10nm chip

That benchmark you posted doesn't show anything but BayTrail, a A4 5000 and the Apple A& all in a bunch of web browser benchmarks. How is that equaling performance? Those benchmarks show nothing really and besides CPU they also are dependent on what browser is used and since each CPU was tested on different OSes ( 8 for the AMD A4, 8.1 for the Atom and iOS for the Apple A7) meaning different browsers for each (IE10, IE11 and Safari) it is a null and void comparison.

The only way to get a true equal comparison is to compare the chips on an equal OC with the same software therefore eliminating any personal OS optimizations (iOS is optimized for Apples hardware, much like games for a 360 are optimized for that specific hardware). Without that equal playing field, you can make a weaker CPU like the A7 look as powerful as a Core i5 through software optimizations.

And when I see the 14nm chips out (Intel has fabbed them, they just haven't gotten the yields they desire) from Samsung or whoever is putting up the billions to setup the fab I will believe it. ARM is not really doing any fabbing or process manufacturing. They develop archs and sell them to others.

The benchmarks were good enough for Anand to make his claim, which I quoted. Evidently you cannot compare the chips up to the ms unit due to the different software used, but you can compare orders of magnitude. Changing the version of the browser your x86 hardware will not run 7x faster, which means that Anand quote is accurate: Apple A7 SoC (a dual core @ 1.3GHz) is able to compete with "the best AMD and Intel have to offer in this space" aka quad-cores at higher frequencies: 1.46GHz for Intel (Turbo of 2.39GHz) and 1.5GHz for AMD.

Moreover, we have recent data from AMD confirming that the new A57 core is faster than jaguar core using the same benchmarks. This is why AMD is replacing Opteron-X servers by Seattle servers. The ARM cores are faster than the x86 cores that are replacing. And we know that Apple custom core is much faster than standard Cortex A57...

ARM develops arch, cores, interconnects, and more things. And they work closely in collaboration with foundries (TMSC, GF, Samsung, IBM). The names of the foundries appear in the slides that I gave above.

ARM and Samsung already showed a working 14nm chip time ago

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/2896-arm-samsung-14nm-finfet.html

and 14nm ARM will be used in next gen phones

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/samsung-galaxy-s5-to-pack-14nm-64-bit-exynos-6-processor-says-senior-arm-exec

It is Intel which is having serious trouble with the 14nm process

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/174832-intel-cancels-14nm-fab-42-in-arizona-but-its-nothing-to-worry-about

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/33688-intel-14nm-transition-in-trouble

https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/3106-altera-leaving-intel-tsmc.html

Again, I wont accept what Anandtech is stating mainly because it is across different OSes and different browsers. Even the Windows 8 vs Windows 8.1 alone is not acceptable since IE11 is only on Windows 7 and 8.1 (you need to upgrade to 8.1 to get 11 in 8) and IE11 itself is faster than IE10.

It is not an equal comparison and that claim is just one person based on browse benchmarks. It would be the same as comparing one game, say Max Payne 3, on XP on a FX 8350 with DX9 to a Intel i7 4770K on 7 using DX11. Of course the XP/AMD system would look faster as DX9 doesn't use the GPU as much as DX11 does.

Until they make an even platform with the same OS using the same software to truly bench, it is not easy to make that claim. You also have to consider OS overhead. iOS is a watered down OS with very little running in the background compared to Windows 8/8.1. Most iOS based devices only have 1GB of RAM while Windows 8 uses by default with drivers and no third party apps installed 700-800MB of RAM.

Do you believe that Anand doesn't know this basic stuff? His quote about the performance of the Apple A7 is correct, I already explained why he is right and why your point irrelevant (my former explanation already considered stuff such as "OS overhead").

As for the AMD ARM vs it current offering, there are a few things I want to point out. It is 4 x86 cores that were designed to be low power vs 8 low power cores. The Opteron X2150 also has a HD 8000 integrated which is probably a bigger chunk of the TDP, so remove that or put a lower power one in and I bet it's TDP drops.

Second, there are no third party benchmarks short of what AMD is stating that I can find, and of course they will claim what they need to try to make it sell. Their 2-4x performance on what software?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7724/it-begins-amd-announces-its-first-arm-based-server-soc-64bit8core-opteron-a1100

According to that the performance is 7 per core vs 10 per core meaning a 42% per core performance improvement, not 2-4x.

Now granted a core increase for the jaguar based CPU would increase TDP above the ARM based CPU, there is still no third party benchmarks to actually verify claims being made yet and until there are, it is all just marketing much like AMD, AMD, Samsung or any company will do to get the excitement up.

This link was given before. 10 over 7 is 43% not 42%, because 0.8 rounds to 1.0 not to zero. The 2--4x improvement can be seen in the same link: the new Opteron is 3x faster than the former Opteron in the given standard benchmark. Nowhere AMD says that it is 4x per core. Why this confusion?

If you want eliminate the TDP of the iGPU on the X2150 then by consistency eliminate the TDP of the extra SoC components in the A1100, because the new Opteron SoC includes things not available on the former Opteron. We also know which is the TDP of the iGPU because the X1150 (CPU) has only 5W less TDP than the X2150. Thus the new ARM cores continue being much more efficient than x86 cores that are replacing.

AMD has already admitted that the new core A57 offers more performance than its own jaguar core with significant reduction in power consumption. Their claims coincide with predictions made before. The A57 performs as expected.

And of course customs cores (Apple A7, Nvidia Denver...) are much faster than the standard A57. As shown by Anand: a dual Apple cyclone core @ 1.3GHz is able to compete with "the best AMD and Intel have to offer in this space" aka quad-cores at higher frequencies: 1.46GHz for Intel (Turbo of 2.39GHz) and 1.5GHz for AMD.

Nvidia Denver cores will be faster than Apple cyclone. In fact Nvidia already announced that will release a CPU to beat Xeons and x86 Opterons in high-performance servers.

As for Intels troubles, SemiWiki seems a bit TSMC biased. I will say that I have talked to a few people who work at Intel (I live just a few hours south of their desert FABs after all) and they are not as concerned as others about it and of course are looking towards 10nm already. Things change and unless we have insider information all we can do is speculate.

I have no problem believing that Intel will produce 14nm and as well 10nm and beyond. They have been at this game long enough they are not filled with idiots.

I have given you three different links. And one of them was from ExtremeTech, which is very Intel-like. I am not surprised by what your friends at Intel say. During 2013 Intel denied the existence of any delay... and latter Intel changed the roadmap and admitted in public the delay to Q1 2014.

The rumor of new delay published by SemiWiki has been just confirmed in last hours. Check the new roadmap: 14nm now is now delayed to Q4 2014, wtith mobile to 2015

http://wccftech.com/intel-14nm-broadwell-q4-2014-delay-rumor-confirmed/

Of course Intel will produce 14nm chips. I agree, but that was not the point. The point was that Intel continue having problems and is delaying again the 14nm process, which reduces the technology gap that once had over the rest of foundries. I expect Foundries convergence at around 10nm.

 

[juanrga]

So, if you like WCCFTech or not, we have some (I hate to admit this) 2nd hand bench marks for HSA software. Assuming this information has not been previously posted, and that these are 100% valid, I am impressed. First set of benchies are x86 code, second set of benchies are HSA enabled.

http:/Korean benchies via WCCF/

7850k with full on hsa whopping a 4670k intel
thats a pounding

Sure, when the software supports it...

What I find far more interesting is that when the software does not support it...the 7850k loses to the 6800k in all but one benchmark and is borderline better than the A8-3870 Llano in a few.

Not promising for HEDT.

So, if you like WCCFTech or not, we have some (I hate to admit this) 2nd hand bench marks for HSA software. Assuming this information has not been previously posted, and that these are 100% valid, I am impressed. First set of benchies are x86 code, second set of benchies are HSA enabled.

http:/Korean benchies via WCCF/

7850k with full on hsa whopping a 4670k intel


thats a pounding

Sure, when the software supports it...

What I find far more interesting is that when the software does not support it...the 7850k loses to the 6800k in all but one benchmark and is borderline better than the A8-3870 Llano in a few.

Not promising for HEDT.

more are coming, the benefits are astounding.and they will get stronger.as time progresses, i may not know all the programming aspects. but when a major tech company tells me it can be done, I assume they know what they are doing and try not to second guess it.
adobe,java and 3-4 other companies are already programming in this area.
even music/sound is starting to be processed by ppu/gpu.(parallel processing unit)

But again, which is more attractive to developers:

1: Use OpenCL, which can take advantage of ANY GPU (Intel iGPU, AMD APU, or NVIDIA/AMD dGPU)

OR

2: Use HSA, which only takes advantage of AMD APU's, and CUDA, which only takes advantage of NVIDIA GPU's

The fail on this argument was mentioned before. HSA and OCL are not disjoint approaches. As mentioned in the HSA FAQ: "HSA is not an alternative to OpenCL."

http://hsafoundation.com/f-a-q/

In fact, OCL is central to HSA up to the point that new version of OCL has been designed with HSA in mind. I already gave in this thread the map of OCL 2.0 key features to HSA features.

You continue repeating forever the same mistakes about HSA that you make about 'mantel', despite you are corrected continuously. Why?